[Winstonm]

This article "Utah Police Hail Man Who Fatally Shot Unarmed Carjacking Suspect" describes what is basically a return to 19th/early 20th century Western law of hanging horse thiefs without trial.

Good thing or bad thing or somewhere in between?

[billw55]

There do not seem to have actually been any horses involved.

Anyway, much depends on the situation at the moment of the shooting. A violent crime was in progress. If there was imminent danger of serious physical harm to a victim, then IMO use of deadly force is acceptable. The account you linked to is not really clear on this point. It says the criminal was initially inside the vehicle attempting to flee. But it also says the criminal lunged at the shooter, attempting to take the gun. Did he continue his attempt to flee, or get out of the vehicle to confront the shooter, or something else? Did this second attack really occur? Is there store surveillance video?

In such cases, facts usually continue to emerge for several days, or weeks. So I will withhold judgment.

However, in principle, I do believe that some circumstances justify use of deadly force in defense of self or others. They don't happen often, but they do happen.

[Winstonm]

 billw55, on 2015-May-04, 08:57, said:

There do not seem to have actually been any horses involved.

Anyway, much depends on the situation at the moment of the shooting. A violent crime was in progress. If there was imminent danger of serious physical harm to a victim, then IMO use of deadly force is acceptable. The account you linked to is not really clear on this point. It says the criminal was initially inside the vehicle attempting to flee. But it also says the criminal lunged at the shooter, attempting to take the gun. Did he continue his attempt to flee, or get out of the vehicle to confront the shooter, or something else? Did this second attack really occur? Is there store surveillance video?

In such cases, facts usually continue to emerge for several days, or weeks. So I will withhold judgment.

However, in principle, I do believe that some circumstances justify use of deadly force in defense of self or others. They don't happen often, but they do happen.

Most SUVs have many horses, usually more than 100.

How did the shooter know a violent crime was in progress? Could the confrontation been something other than a theft, say, a repo gone bad or a domestic dispute from a divorce? I'm not saying there was good sense shown by the possible thief, whatever his status, but can a bypasser know the circumstances enough to impose a death sentence?

[billw55]

 Winstonm, on 2015-May-04, 10:15, said:

Most SUVs have many horses, usually more than 100.

How did the shooter know a violent crime was in progress? Could the confrontation been something other than a theft, say, a repo gone bad or a domestic dispute from a divorce? I'm not saying there was good sense shown by the possible thief, whatever his status, but can a bypasser know the circumstances enough to impose a death sentence?

Valid questions all. I can imagine situations where the nature of the crime is clear, and others (likely more of them) where it is not. Also the original crime may not be relevant, if self defense becomes the issue.

Use of the phrase "impose the death sentence" implies that this was an execution, which assumes facts not in evidence.

[mikeh]

I think the telling statement in the report was that the woman, whose vehicle was being stolen, was reaching in to get her purse....and was being pushed away. It sure reads as if she were outside the vehicle, the would-be thief already in the drivers seat, and likely full of adrenalin, pushing the woman away while trying to start the vehicle.

The police comments seem to reflect some inconsistencies. After setting out the above scenario, they say that the shooting was justified because the thief 'lunged' at the shooter. Put yourself in the driver's seat, trying to start the car and escape....if you are still pushing the woman away, how can you be lunging at the shooter? Even if you have successfully pushed the woman away, does it make any sense that you would even be able to meaningfully 'lunge' at someone standing outside of the vehicle, pointing a gun at you?

The cops say that the woman safety, even her life, were in danger, but that makes no sense. To be in danger, from the unarmed thief, she'd have to be still so entangled with the driver, or the car, that she was at risk for being knocked down, and possibly run over by the rear wheels. Yet is she were that entangled, the driver couldn't really be lunging at the shooter, could he?

Otoh, if the woman were stepping or pushed back, then it strikes me as implausible that the thief, having got the woman clear, would turn away from his efforts to start and drive the car, and try to get out of the vehicle to attack the gun-holder.

In fairness, trying to reconstruct what happened from the newspaper story is an exercise in futility. However, I would very much like to know the entry points of the bullets. If they were into the front of the victim, then I'd accept that the thief was coming at the shooter. My expectation, however, is that the bullets entered from the side and maybe even to some degree from behind the thief (if only because it reads as if the driver's door was open....if he was shot from the passenger side, then the lunging story makes even less sense). And if shot from the driver's side, with the door open, I assume, possibly erroneously, that the shooter didn't shoot through the door, tho maybe he shot through an open window. Of course, if he shot through the window, that disproves the lunging theory, since the thief was blocked from direct attack on the shooter...he would need to get out of the vehicle first.

My guess is that this was an unnecessary killing, in which the actions of the shooter have been sanitized by the police.

[billw55]

Accounts I have read from other sources say that the carjacker exited the vehicle on the shooter's orders, and then subsequently lunged at him to take the gun ... according to the shooter. One shot was fired, to the chest.

It seems then, that the imminent danger to the woman was past. Was this replaced by imminent danger to the shooter? Well, he says so, which is to be expected either way. But even if it is true, the shooter had an opportunity to let the carjacker flee, after the woman was out of danger. Instead he tried to ... arrest him? Not sure that is a valid action.

[kenberg]

As has been said, the details matter. They always do. But to the general question of whether a person is allowed to go to the aid of another person, and then use force if needed, I think the answer is yes. It wasn't so long ago that bystanders were being criticized for not coming to the aid of a victim when a crime was being committed. It is often not clear just what is going on, what the provocation was and so on, so caution is sensible. Often butting out is the best choice, or perhaps calling the police and then butting out. But here he acted and it at least sounds as if he got the situation right. If so, I don't see what he would be charged with.

[mikeh]

 kenberg, on 2015-May-04, 11:58, said:

As has been said, the details matter. They always do. But to the general question of whether a person is allowed to go to the aid of another person, and then use force if needed, I think the answer is yes. It wasn't so long ago that bystanders were being criticized for not coming to the aid of a victim when a crime was being committed. It is often not clear just what is going on, what the provocation was and so on, so caution is sensible. Often butting out is the best choice, or perhaps calling the police and then butting out. But here he acted and it at least sounds as if he got the situation right. If so, I don't see what he would be charged with.

got the situation right?

I suppose it is possible that he did, but when the interaction does not appear to have created a real threat to anyone else's health (note that the woman clearly felt that getting her purse from the car was important, so presumably didn't feel that her life was in danger), and that the thief was unarmed....not merely without a gun but without any weapon at all....it seems to me that having the situation end up with someone lying dead from gunshot wounds is probably not the result of getting the situation right.

All too often these killings are only ever told from the perspective of the killer, and there is some justification for thinking that the killer may not be the most objective source of information.

Put it another way...had the bystander simply phoned 911 and yelled at the guy...maybe taking some video on his phone if he is able....yes, the SUV might end up damaged, and yes, the insurance company probably has to pay some money, but a fellow human is alive...hopefully facing some sanctions, but since when is unarmed theft of a vehicle a capital offence? Let alone a capital offence where the conviction, the sentencing, and the execution is carried out by the type of person who thinks that it is a good idea to carry a loaded, concealed handgun?

Anyone whose reaction to seeing this sort of crime is to pull and aim his gun is quite possibly itching for a reason to shoot. I admit that may be unfair, and hope that I am seriously mistaken and that the shooter is profoundly distressed by his actions, but somehow I doubt it.

[billw55]

 mikeh, on 2015-May-04, 12:46, said:

Anyone whose reaction to seeing this sort of crime is to pull and aim his gun is quite possibly itching for a reason to shoot. I admit that may be unfair, and hope that I am seriously mistaken and that the shooter is profoundly distressed by his actions, but somehow I doubt it.

You may be right. On the other hand, certain facts (as reported so far that is) are not completely consistent with that. One shot to the chest; this is a far cry from eight shots in the back as in South Carolina.

On the other hand, the simplest scenario to construct from the information presented, involves the shooter having an opportunity to essentially drop the matter.

I wonder how this pans out legally. In the Zimmerman/Martin case, Zimmerman successfully claimed self defense, even though he clearly took conscious steps to bring about a confrontation. That seemed fishy to me.

[kenberg]

I suppose I didn't choose my words with extreme care. By "got it right" I meant that the SUV actually was being hijacked. This would be as opposed to, say, an argument where one is driving off leaving the other behind because he is pissed about something. I did not mean "got it right" in some cosmic philosophical sense.

Assuming that the description of the would be thief lunging at a man holding a gun is correct, that is called "getting it wrong".

[mikeh]

 billw55, on 2015-May-04, 13:03, said:

You may be right. On the other hand, certain facts (as reported so far that is) are not completely consistent with that. One shot to the chest; this is a far cry from eight shots in the back as in South Carolina.

On the other hand, the simplest scenario to construct from the information presented, involves the shooter having an opportunity to essentially drop the matter.

I wonder how this pans out legally. In the Zimmerman/Martin case, Zimmerman successfully claimed self defense, even though he clearly took conscious steps to bring about a confrontation. That seemed fishy to me.

Zimmerman was accused of a criminal offence. It is commonplace for those who are acquitted to proclaim that they were found innocent. That may be what happened, but most of the time the acquittal is not based on proven innocence but, rather, in the prosecution not discharging it's beyond reasonable doubt burden. Which is why, fwiw, there was no fundamental inconsistency in O.J. Getting acquitted criminally and being found liable civilly.

Here, the shooter might dodge criminal charges on the basis that the evidence makes unlikely that criminal conduct could be proved, independent of any belief that criminal conduct occurred, which is impossible to evaluate on the limited info available to us here.

[Winstonm]

Regardless, I do not think the wild west is where we want to be headed with our criminal justice system, and to me that is precisely where condoning this type action says we are heading. There are civilian or citizen's arrest procedures in place - I think most of them involve summoning the police to make the actual arrest. Once gun-toting legality is factored in, does the citizen's arrest then make the gun-toter a deputy de facto, subject to the same shooting provisions that are legal for police and other trained law enforcement personel.

Myself, I do not think moving backwards from civilized society toward old west mentality is wise. I think it is fantastical thinking once again overruling reason.

[billw55]

 Winstonm, on 2015-May-04, 14:12, said:

does the citizen's arrest then make the gun-toter a deputy de facto, subject to the same shooting provisions that are legal for police and other trained law enforcement personel.

This is a very interesting question.

[barmar]

 Winstonm, on 2015-May-04, 10:15, said:

How did the shooter know a violent crime was in progress? Could the confrontation been something other than a theft, say, a repo gone bad or a domestic dispute from a divorce? I'm not saying there was good sense shown by the possible thief, whatever his status, but can a bypasser know the circumstances enough to impose a death sentence?

If there were a reasonable explanation for what he was doing, he could have said so to the shooter (I'm sure repo men are used to this), instead of lunging at him. "Don't shoot me, it's really my car, not hers!"

[mikeh]

 barmar, on 2015-May-04, 15:09, said:

If there were a reasonable explanation for what he was doing, he could have said so to the shooter (I'm sure repo men are used to this), instead of lunging at him. "Don't shoot me, it's really my car, not hers!"

Let's accept that stealing a car is unreasonable.

Let's accept that pushing away the owner of said car, who is reaching for her purse, is also unreasonable.

Is that justification for not only pointing the gun at the thief but also getting or staying so close that when the guy 'lunges' at him, one should shoot him?

It may be. Indeed, I fully accept that if the thief was actually trying to grab the gun, then in those circumstances, the shooting was justified, in that a reasonable person would be entitled to think that the resulting struggle could jeopardize his safety or life.

However, I think that there is good reason to want to have prove that the shooter was really in danger. My starting bias is that when a person carries a concealed lethal weapon it is because that person has some desire to use it. I am not suggesting that he was actively waiting for an excuse, so that he got his jollies by doing this, but I am suggesting that he lives life thinking that possession of a lethal weapon empowers him to enact justice should the occasion arise...that he is more than prepared to kill someone if he gets a legal chance to do so.

Then, seeing a situation in which I am sure there was anger and fear in the calls of the woman, his reaction is not to call the cops, not to pull the woman to safety, but to pull and aim his gun and be a hero.....fully ready to shoot someone, even tho at that time he sees no sign of a weapon, and no obvious injury to the woman.

My bias may be unfair, or may be accurate but not be a factor in what happened. A lot of parking lots have video surveillance, so maybe there is some video of the incident. Maybe the guy acted properly. Maybe he was just a trigger-happy asshole looking for a legal kill. Maybe somewhere in between.

The sad reality is that the right to carry firearms, so sacred to so many Americans, resulted in the death of a human being, who wouldn't have died otherwise. That he was a petty crook means that many will write his death off as being his own fault, and to a degree it probably was. So what? Are we going to allow retail clerks to shoot shoplifters if they attempt to avoid arrest? Or jaywalkers? It appears that in some places in the US, the cops consider it sporting to severely injure/kill unarmed suspects by giving them the now-infamous 'nickel rides' in police vehicles, so it should be no surprise that the same culture applauds killing unarmed petty crooks.

We have our own problems with violence in Canada, including police violence. Much of it comes indirectly from the US, partly because organized crime routinely trades high-grade marijuana for guns, and partly because we are culturally saturated with the gun-sodden popular media.....a huge number of US shows glorify and sanitize the use of weapons. We are also governed by a political party that buys into the US Republican world view, and believes inequality is a reflection of superiority by the rich and inferiority by the poor.

But I like to think that had this carjacking occurred up here, there would be one less death, and certainly the shooter would now be facing a number of serious charges.

[kenberg]

My take on this case versus the Zimmerman case (not being a lawyer, this won't address the law):

What I would say to Zimmerman: He's punching you? Of course he is punching you, you idiot. You were stalking him.

My reaction here? This went badly for you? Of course it went badly for you. You were trying to hijack a car and you lunged at a guy holding a gun.

Of course this gets settled by law, and I don't know the law. But I thought Zimmerman acted like an idiot stalking the guy, and I think this guy acted like an idiot in trying to steal the SUV and then charging at a guy holding a gun. What happens next is foreseeable. Legal or not legal, it's foreseeable. If you don't like the foreseeable.results, don't act like an idiot.

[mikeh]

 kenberg, on 2015-May-04, 16:00, said:

My take on this case versus the Zimmerman case (not being a lawyer, this won't address the law):

What I would say to Zimmerman: He's punching you? Of course he is punching you, you idiot. You were stalking him.

My reaction here? This went badly for you? Of course it went badly for you. You were trying to hijack a car and you lunged at a guy holding a gun.

Of course this gets settled by law, and I don't know the law. But I thought Zimmerman acted like an idiot stalking the guy, and I think this guy acted like an idiot in trying to steal the SUV and then charging at a guy holding a gun. What happens next is foreseeable. Legal or not legal, it's foreseeable. If you don't like the foreseeable.results, don't act like an idiot.

If he was charging the guy with the gun, then that was stupid, but not all stupidity is punishable by death. More problematic is why it is that you assume that the thief was charging anyone. I re-read the newspaper report, and I don't see any reference to the thief being anywhere other than in the driver's seat as he was shot. Yes, it is alleged that he 'lunged' but for all we know, this was a motion made while still in the vehicle...he is described as trying to put the vehicle in gear and drive away, which is a foreseeable course of action when the alternative is to stay and be confronted by a civilian with a gun fetish, and (if he were to survive that) to face criminal charges. Moreover, the police say that he wouldn't have been shot if he'd obeyed commands to get out of the car, which suggests he was shot because he didn't get out of the car.

So it looks to me as if there was no rational basis for the shooter to fear for his own safety...again, it may be that more information would cause my opinion on that to change.

[kenberg]

Not being paid to either prosecute or defend, I will not look deeply into this. I can imagine details that would make me vote guilty if the shooter is charged, and I can imagine details that would make me vote not guilty.

Of course if he just walked up to the guy and shot him, I would vote guilty. If that's what happened, I doubt that there will be a problem in finding him guilty..

If I correctly understand Winston's thoughts in posting this, he believes that the shooter should be found guilty not only if he just walked up and shot him, but in many other cases as well.

Probably most everyone agrees that in some cases the shooter is criminally liable and in some cases he is not. I suspect Winston's, and your, list of cases where he would find the shooter guilty is longer than mine.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2015-May-04, 16:46, said:

Not being paid to either prosecute or defend, I will not look deeply into this. I can imagine details that would make me vote guilty if the shooter is charged, and I can imagine details that would make me vote not guilty.

Of course if he just walked up to the guy and shot him, I would vote guilty. If that's what happened, I doubt that there will be a problem in finding him guilty..

If I correctly understand Winston's thoughts in posting this, he believes that the shooter should be found guilty not only if he just walked up and shot him, but in many other cases as well.

Probably most everyone agrees that in some cases the shooter is criminally liable and in some cases he is not. I suspect Winston's, and your, list of cases where he would find the shooter guilty is longer than mine.

Ken,

My reason for posting this is that I was shocked to see the slippage backwards toward a Wild West mentality. This guy IMO was a car thief, not a mugger, kidnapper, rapist, or murderer. IMO, stealing cars today is similar to what stealing horses was in the 1800s. Are we at the point where a civilian - any civilian - can shoot (instead of hang) a modern horse thief?

Quoting from the article: (emphasis added)

Quote

Jackson also cited Utah law, which allows the use of guns for self-defense and to prevent the commission of a forcible felony, including an attempted car theft.

Yippee-yo-kay-ay. MF.

This particular case means nothing to me, only that it stands for something bigger than a single event. This law recreates hanging horse thieves by making car theft a potentially capitol crime. Hope that clears up my motivations.

[blackshoe]

 billw55, on 2015-May-04, 11:36, said:

Accounts I have read from other sources say that the carjacker exited the vehicle on the shooter's orders, and then subsequently lunged at him to take the gun ... according to the shooter. One shot was fired, to the chest.

It seems then, that the imminent danger to the woman was past. Was this replaced by imminent danger to the shooter? Well, he says so, which is to be expected either way. But even if it is true, the shooter had an opportunity to let the carjacker flee, after the woman was out of danger. Instead he tried to ... arrest him? Not sure that is a valid action.

Some states, mostly in the East, have laws that say that you are not supposed to shoot someone, whatever he has done or is doing, unless he presents an active threat to life or limb. Other states, mostly in the West, say in effect that once someone initiates violence against you, you are justified in doing whatever in takes to stop him. Utah is not an Eastern state.

I used to live in Albuquerque. My next door neighbor was a state trooper. We were discussing a rash of burglaries in an adjoining neighborhood. His advice: "just be sure the body is inside the house when we get here".