Vet Loses Everything in Aftermath of Defending Property

[FreeLancer]

This guy was trying to get a thief off his property by firing in his direction and winds up shot and arrested by the police and all his worldly possessions burned or stolen while stuck in jail.  It's a sobering reminder of what can await us after we pull the trigger.  Make sure it's worth it.

http://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta/charges-dropped-against-veteran-1223433.html

[fuzzy]

I wish he could sue the officers, the department and the smooth-talking thief.  That poor guy should have known better, but so should the trigger happy cops, and the thief.  My heart goes out to the vet.

[mobilus]

Just proves that a warning shot is ALWAYS a bad move.

[rustyknife]

I agree, warning shots are a bad thing. If I light one off, it's not to scare the bad guy.

[OldManSchmidt]

Agreed, warning shots are a bad idea.  He did nothing wrong or illegal.  He had one BG trying to steal from him and 4 trying to kill him.  He should have fired for effect...5 times.  Given that he is an ex-Marine, I am very surprised he didn't.  The 5 BG's should give thanks in their prayers.

[bdhutier]

He should have lived in Texas!!! 

[FreeLancer]

Really, guys??  Really?? 

You "fire for effect" guys really think things would have turned out better for this poor vet if he'd done what you're suggesting?  We're not talking about a SHTF looting scenario here, we're still operating under the rule of law.  How does the cops showing up to the scene with a dead slimebag, shot while trying to jack a lawnmower by a naked guy running around with a battle rifle, make this situation any better?  Oh, I know -- kill the police, too.  Really?? 

[bdhutier]

Really, guys??  Really?? 

You "fire for effect" guys really think things would have turned out better for this poor vet if he'd done what you're suggesting?  We're not talking about a SHTF looting scenario here, we're still operating under the rule of law.  How does the cops showing up to the scene with a dead slimebag, shot while trying to jack a lawnmower by a naked guy running around with a battle rifle, make this situation any better?  Oh, I know -- kill the police, too.  Really??

Sorry dude, I guess I'm too dumb to understand your point.  Are you saying he shouldn't have engaged this guy?   

[endurance]

I agree, FreeLanceR.  The situation did not warrant the use of lethal force.  What state allows you to kill someone for taking a used lawnmower?  The situation would have been better handled by calling 911.  Sure, he might have gotten away with the lawnmower, but he'd still have the rest of his worldly possessions and wouldn't have spent days in jail and been shot by the police.  While it certainly seems the cops shot first and asked questions later, from their perspective, they're rolling up on a guy shooting a rifle into the street.  Sometimes situations like that don't leave officers the time to evaluate who's the good guy and who's the bad guy.  Something that should always be considered when your weapon clears the holster.

If he didn't want to wait for 911, then confront the guy with a less than lethal option (pepper spray, tazer, etc.) and if he comes at you with fists, respond appropriately.  If he comes at you with a weapon, respond appropriately (with deadly force).

[bdhutier]

I agree, FreeLanceR.  The situation did not warrant the use of lethal force.  What state allows you to kill someone for taking a used lawnmower?

Endurance, Texas does.  Under the Castle Doctrine, deadly force is authorized to protect your life or property, and you are not limited to the confines of your real estate boundaries. 

I'm not commenting on whether the vet was morally justified or not, I don't know the story.  FreeLanceR's comment seriously made no sense to me as written.

[FreeLancer]

Are you saying he shouldn't have engaged this guy?   

Yes.  What Endurance said is exactly the point I was trying to make, except he's more eloquent and virtuous than I and doesn't have to stoop to sarcasm.

[bdhutier]

I, for one, am a HUGE fan of sarcasm!! 

[OldManSchmidt]

So does KY.  And for the record, the story does not say or even imply that he tried to engage the police...and yet they shot him. In fact, best as I can tell, his injuries were serious and even life threatening.

Given the activity the officers were engaged in immediately prior to their response to his property (reality TV), I suspect there was more than a little Judge Dredd syndrome going on.

I stand by my statement that the thief and the officers are lucky to be alive.   The story seems to indicate that the man was still functional after he was shot.  Given his Marine Corps background, I am very surprised he didn't shift into survival combat mode on instinct.  You know the old saying, "Every Marine is a rifleman first.", and he did hold the high ground.  This could have gone a lot worse for everybody involved.

[endurance]

Endurance, Texas does.  Under the Castle Doctrine, deadly force is authorized to protect your life or property, and you are not limited to the confines of your real estate boundaries. 

I'm not commenting on whether the vet was morally justified or not, I don't know the story.  FreeLanceR's comment seriously made no sense to me as written.

Well, that's why it pays to know your local laws.  Colorado has the "make my day" law that says:

18-1-704.5.  Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
   

    The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
    Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.
    Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
    Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.

However, looking at the court's actions since the law passed, things get very fuzzy as soon as you step outside your front door or onto your front porch.  Shooting someone trying to steal your car on the street, no real protection from criminal prosecution.  Shooting someone trying to steal your car from inside your garage, likely protection from prosecution.  How does it impact your shed, car port or car in the driveway?  Anybody's guess, roll the dice and see where you end up.

You're taking a hell of a chance with changing your life forever anytime you fire a gun at someone.  IMHO, if you're going to do it, it better be because your life, not your property, is in imminent jeopardy.  Warning shots are never justified (unless you're just trying to spook the bear that's trying to get into your horses sweet grain and don't want the DOW breathing down your neck ).

[FreeLancer]

And for the record, the story does not say or even imply that he tried to engage the police...and yet they shot him. In fact, best as I can tell, his injuries were serious and even life threatening.

Given the activity the officers were engaged in immediately prior to their response to his property (reality TV), I suspect there was more than a little Judge Dredd syndrome going on.

I don't disagree with your assessment of the officers actions, and my guess is that had a lot to do with the DA dropping the charges against him. 

But I think we all need to be prepared for Barney Fife to be the first officer on the scene (except he'll have an AR-15 -- and, potentially, an equally moronic partner or two -- instead of one bullet in a revolver).  It's up to us to deescalate these situations, or better yet, avoid it altogether.  Don't give Barney an excuse to shoot you, no matter how justified you think your actions are.  And if you wind up shooting Barney you can pretty much kiss your life goodbye, no matter how incompetent or illegal his actions turn out to be.

Before I pull the trigger, I want to be reasonably sure I won't regret it later.  Since I don't have the time to work out all the ramifications in the heat of the moment, it behooves me to think through these scenarios well in advance.  My ultimate goal is simple, I don't want to merely survive, I want to thrive and be there for my family, friends, and neighbors.  And I can't do that if I'm stuck behind bars facing charges because I went vigilante on some scumbag's ass over a junked-out lawnmower.

I could be wrong, but my guess is this poor vet wishes he'd just called 911.

[OldManSchmidt]

Yes, I am very well aware that it is ok for an officer to threaten your life without cause.  I suppose it is equally ok for them to kill you without cause too.

As to the rest, I see no point in debating the issue.  As usual, it seems I am engaging in double plus ungood thoughts.

[PistolWhipped]

DROPTHEGUN!*BANG*  Not even enough time to process the command, much less comply.  He was looking to shoot when he got there, the shout out was for plausible dependability.  No amount of "Don't make Barney Fife shoot you" will stop someone who is itching to shoot the bad guy on TV.

I cannot honestly state that someone firing at me from the dark with almost no warning would not end up with a lot of bad things for everyone involved.  While I know that you are going to get screwed in court if you shoot a cop, anyone shooting at my kidney is trying to kill me.  A kidney shot is a very potentially lethal wound.  Lethal force legally, and more importantly, morally justifies lethal force.  A badge and a blue shirt does not make shooting you in the kidney okay.  There is no reason to act like it does.

And we all talk about how cops are expected to get off, and how confusing it must be for them.  What about the Marine that was awoken by a thief at 1am, was kind or dumb enough to fire a warning shot, and ended up shot by rifle toting cops?  Somehow he was level headed, but the poor cops were confused?  And who the hell lets the thief off?  Said he was there at 1am to "buy parts"?  My hairy white ass, this whole story stinks.

And I am still wondering why all those cops had rifles.  They keep patrol rifles in the trunk, cased, and unloaded, last I checked.  So they stopped, parked, got out, unpacked rifles, loaded them,  then went running around looking for the gunfire?  Sounds to me like posturing for the camera.  The guys wanted to look like badasses on TV more than to do their job.

Police are not being held to acceptable standards anymore.  I understand people make mistakes, but that is the excuse for EVERY negligent police shooting these days.  At what point do we stop saying "Shit Happens" when citizens are maimed and killed and start telling cops to "STOP SCREWING UP."  Unfortunately, while their payrolls are handled by politicians, their policies and procedures will also reflect this.  Good cops are getting rarer and rarer these days.  And those we have are often stifled or run out by bad bosses.

That said, there is always a the old Spanish Proverb. "Mejor Me Traigas Tabaco En La Carcel, Que Flores Ha El Cemetario."  Better to bring me tobacco in prison than flowers to my grave.  If the choice is "Jail"  or "Dead", one is much easier to get out of than the other.

[RPZ]

I agree that generally warning shots are not a good idea. There might be exceptions though. The story seems to indicate a sort of brazen could not care less attitude of the thief. Yep, pity it was not in Texas.

This guy has one thing in his favor; the whole thing from the time of arrival of the public servants is recorded on audio/visual - which assuming it is not dissappeared in the meantime can be supoenaed later. While we can not always rely on the press for accuracy, if their dialog snippet is actually fact some of it neither speaks highly of the responders nor supports their position on their use of deadly force...

“Where he at? Where he at?” an officer can be heard shouting.

"Where he at"?? Where did our educated and highly trained public servant study english?

Another says, “You got a shot, take it.”

This is not indicative of a spontaneous shot due to an imminent deadly threat i.e. a weapon actually pointed at a defender in a direct confrontation.

Maybe this one will get some followup as time goes.

[OldManSchmidt]

We can go round and round about who screwed who here.  The reality of the matter is that while a lawsuit, even in the unlikely event he could win it, MIGHT mostly replace his material losses, nothing is going to give the guy back his kidney, the lost part of his colon, or the 7 months of his life that were successfully taken from him.

I think the part that bothers me most is that the charges were dropped.  If the PA dropped the charges, it implies that the man committed no crime.  If that is true, we can extrapolate that his injuries and incarceration were in fact unlawfully inflicted.  That extrapolation raises the questions of whether or not those acts rise to a civil or criminal level act and who is culpable for those acts.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm glad the charges were dropped.  Notwithstanding, the man still has an arrest on his record along with the lifelong consequences of his injuries.  Additionally, he has no home to go to nor any resources to fall back on.  "Not even his driver's license to prove identity" according to the story.  IMO, the thief precipitated the entire event with a few grandstanding, renegade cops (who are not necessarily representative of police at large) making matters much worse.

And for the record, why shouldn't a person be lawfully able to defend their property, wherever it is physically located, with lethal force?  I don't have much, but what I do have I worked hard for.  Much of what I own makes me able to earn my living.  Take it away and you threaten my ability to put food on my table and a roof over my family's head.  That is just as great a threat as sticking a gun in my face to my mind.  If I can't feed my family, we starve.  End result, we are just as dead, it just took longer.

[FreeLancer]

And for the record, why shouldn't a person be lawfully able to defend their property, wherever it is physically located, with lethal force?  I don't have much, but what I do have I worked hard for.  Much of what I own makes me able to earn my living.  Take it away and you threaten my ability to put food on my table and a roof over my family's head.  That is just as great a threat as sticking a gun in my face to my mind.  If I can't feed my family, we starve.  End result, we are just as dead, it just took longer.

I don't disagree with you and I think you provide a reasonable moral argument. 

But it's not up to you and me, it's up to the justice system in our local jurisdictions and their prevailing politics and laws.  I think we can expect things to worsen as the economy goes south and those in power do even more to pit the "have nots" (criminals) against the "haves" (you and me, and anyone else with a pot to piss in).  This is what FerFAL reports has been going on in Argentina for the last decade.

[OldManSchmidt]

And what do the haves do in Argentina when they catch the have nots "liberating" their hard earned resources?  I haven't been following the situation so I honestly do not know.

[endurance]

I have a coworker form Argentina.  Lived there until she finished law school and her parents and one of her brothers and one sister still live there.  I gave her one of FerFal's blog posts and she laughed out loud at it.  She goes back at least once, usually twice a year still to get cheap dental work and plastic surgery.  Maybe FerFal lives on the wrong side of the tracks, but her 85 year old mom still feels comfortable going out to the store alone in Buenos Aires at 11pm.  While there's no doubt things have gone down hills since 2001, it's not the TEOTWAWKI sometimes he plays it off to be.  You don't wear jewelry, don't drive a fancy car, and don't flash cash and you're not all that likely to be the victim of crime. 

I'm not by any means saying that things are going to get worse here in the years to come, I just take what FerFal says with a grain of salt.  There are lessons there, but not all of them are accurate portrayals of the reality on the ground (at least no the reality everywhere in Argentina).

[PistolWhipped]

Speaking of Argentina and FerFAL, here is an article Gabe Suarez penned on his time in Argentina

  Argentina. It is probably one of the most dangerous countries on earth, and like Colombia and South Africa, very beautiful.

I landed there after a grueling 10 hour flight complete with snoring passengers and shrieking babies, to be met by my host Jorge Baigorria.

Jorge picked me up and with one look announced that I needed some sleep. A mind reader as well as one of Argentina's best shooters...competitively and otherwise.

I slept most of the afternoon at my digs in Buenos Aires, and awoke just in time to go to dinner. There is one thing about B.A., there is no shortage of food...in any quantity. Same goes for the beer.

We got right to work. The course was The Ultimate Combat Skills and it was populated by tough men from all over the region. We had military guys whose eyes spoke of plenty of nasty encounters, and bodyguards whose lives are as cheap as a dinner in any town in the USA.

We had civilians. Quite a few. Unlike the so-called free states of New York and California, citizens in Argentina can carry guns.

We had cops too. Cops in B.A. are killed weekly. While I was there at least four were murdered on the job. An environment like that makes for motivated learners.

There are men here whose personal scores of dead bad guys make the likes of Jim Cirillo look pedestrian. I am humbled that they wanted to listen to what I had to say, and that they invited me back.

We crammed the entire CRG program into one whirlwind day and shot so much ammo you could not walk from one end to the other without walking on brass.

The next day we worked on fighting with knives. Not the defensive stuff so popuylar here in the US in some circles, but material borrowed from my knife instructor Tom Sotis.

Here in Argentina, you don't get one to three attackers like in the USA. Here you get twenty thugs! They call them "Barra Brava".

So the fight may begin or end with a knife. Surrender and they will likely stomp you to death, throw you under a train, or worse. You dare not let them take you alive. Everyone fights here.

Next came Force On Force. Hard force on force as we did not have the liability issues we face in the USA.

If someone broke their hand, or lost a tooth, we had a doctor nearby to fix them up and bring them back to class. Seriousness with a latin sense of humor.

We worked on long range shooting as well and the majority of the class shot out to 90 yards. The last day we discussed integration of weapons with the pistol as well as the ever popular Vehicle Gunfighting program.

In Argentina, a carjack means they kill you and take your car. They wait for you to arrive at home and situations where wives and kids have seen their fathers bleed to death from wounds inflicted by the carjackers are common. Noone is immune so everyone takes this very seriously.

As an interesting note an anti-gun politician whose famous quote of "Insecurity is only a sensation" was shot in the head by criminals while I was there.

He is presently in a coma. Perhaps the bullet lodged in his skull is also just a sensation. Who knows?

(Edited by FerFAL to add: I remember that! It was pathetic the way his wife, even with her husband brain dead, insisted that BA isn’t dangerous. Pathetic and ironic all at once)

After the training we spent some days sight seeing. One of the places I went to was perhaps one of the worst places on earth, the Puerta Yerro area, a makeshift shanty town reminiscent of what we saw in South Africa.


There only the thugs rule and everyone is armed. Life is as cheap as a cigarette, and you'd better make sure you kill your adversary and anyone who appears to be with him.

This may be hard for law abiding american CCW folk to swallow, but if you have to shoot or stab an attacker here, you run like hell before their friends, or the police arrive.

It is just that kind of place. I was told that not long before I arrived a 12 year old girl was raped to death there, shot in the head and partially eaten by rats before the police found her. The bad guys were dealt with...off the books. Things are different here.

I left all my knives, holsterts, and weapons with the guys in B.A. I can get more, and they may need what I left tonight. Places like this really make you appreciate where we live and how we live. Let us never forget that, and specially not next November.

http://www.warriortalk.com/

And a little Addendum by FerFAL.

I took a couple classes with Jorge Baigorria and respect the man a lot. He’s a terrific instructor, has a lot of street gunfighting experience, and “EL Negro” is just the funniest guy you’ll ever encounter.

One small correction thought. Generally speaking, people here can’t carry firearms. You have to: A) Own a millionaire company, that moves a lot of cash B) Have important political or police connections C) Be rich enough to make up a company that justifies you owning a gun. Yes, THAT rich.

Other than that citizens here can’t carry weapons.


FerFAL

So people "can't" carry guns because "Big Brother" says it's bad.  They do so anyway.  Citizens work not only to avoid and survive ruffians, but their own government as well.  Let's face it, there may one day come a point where Americans will have to do the same. 

And endurance, I'm not sure what you mean to prove with your post.  No one who has watched the news would argue Mexico isn't a dangerous place, and I have still gone there on vacation.  Just because someone you love has gone somewhere and made it back okay doesn't mean it is entirely safe and there aren't troubles.  I made sure I carried a knife from shortly after I arrived in Mexico until I was on my way out.  I didn't expect trouble, but I made sure I was as prepared as I could be should it arise.  That is the whole point of this site, and of the survival/preparedness mindset in general.  Argentina is not nearly so friendly a place as you paint, if the accounts of the widely recognized professionals above are to be believed.

Chances are something isn't gonna happen, but if it does, then probability is the least of your concerns.  If we all went on the precept of not worrying about what probably wouldn't happen, no one would ever carry a weapon, wear seat belts, or have any type of insurance (health, home, or life).  Funny thing, but you never need something until you do.  Then it's too late to go get it.

[FreeLancer]

....I just take what FerFal says with a grain of salt.  There are lessons there, but not all of them are accurate portrayals of the reality on the ground (at least no the reality everywhere in Argentina).

I don't get the impression that Argentina has descended into TEOTWAWKI from reading FerFAL's blog, but rather that the economic and political situation is demolishing the middle class.  The upper class has the ability to insulate themselves from reality, the middle class is labeled as the "haves" that aren't paying their fair share, and the poor are the "have nots" that are pandered to in order for the elites to stay in power.  From his descriptions it sounds like the cops are fewer, underpaid, and more prone to corruption, so less motivated to chase criminals into the bad part of town.  Anyone who tries to defend themselves is almost as likely to face prosecution as the criminal perpetrators. 

This is the impression I get from reading FerFAL's blog, but obviously I don't have any way to verify this.  I'm not surprised that others would have different experiences.  My life in California, which everyone knows is a horrible place, isn't that bad in my experience and I've never been the victim of crime.  But I wouldn't have to move more than a few miles away to be at major risk every time I went out after dark.  I also know I need to be extra careful about my use of deadly force, as I'm much more likely to be charged with some degree of homicide in the aftermath of defending myself, than the rest of you.  You know what they say, as goes California, so goes the rest of the country.  Hopefully that's not true, for your sakes.

[endurance]

I'm retracting most of what I said after listening to Ferfal on TSP this morning.  I think there was definitely some grasshopper bias in my friend from Argentina.  Just because you live in a particular neighborhood or have managed to maintain a certain lifestyle doesn't mean nothing bad is happening.  At the same time, Argentina is not northern Mexico when it comes to crime and I think that sometimes there's a tendency to believe that it is.  Overall, I agree with much of the advice Ferfal presented in the podcast and definitely need to do some deeper digging to explore more. 

[RPZ]

I don't disagree with you and I think you provide a reasonable moral argument. 

But it's not up to you and me, it's up to the justice system in our local jurisdictions and their prevailing politics and laws.  I think we can expect things to worsen as the economy goes south and those in power do even more to pit the "have nots" (criminals) against the "haves" (you and me, and anyone else with a pot to piss in).  This is what FerFAL reports has been going on in Argentina for the last decade.

Much more the pity this was not in Texas.

In Texas, "you or me" can still initiate Grand Jury indictments when a non-acting or corrupt DA "declines" to do so. This means that criminal charges can be initiated against public servants in cases like this by any citizen. And that might include the DA involved - "failure to act" is a felony in Texas.

[FreeLancer]

Much more the pity this was not in Texas.

In Texas, "you or me" can still initiate Grand Jury indictments when a non-acting or corrupt DA "declines" to do so. This means that criminal charges can be initiated against public servants in cases like this by any citizen. And that might include the DA involved - "failure to act" is a felony in Texas.

Don't Mess With Texas! 

[OldManSchmidt]

So let me get this straight.  In Texas, if you engage the bad guy, you are possibly committing the felonies of assault, attempted murder, or murder as appropriate; but if you fail to engage the bad guy, you have committed the felony of "failing to act"?  Wow!  Sounds like you're damned if you do and damned if you don't in Texas!

Here in KY (Louisville at least), I have been given to understand by our PD that only the government can initiate criminal proceedings.  Mere civilians are limited to civil actions.

[mobilus]

OMS, I can't see an action carried out in the name of self-protection (or the protection of one's property) as being assault, attempted murder, or murder.   

And don't worry, there is plenty of "failure to act" here in the Great State of Texas...although I've never heard of anyone being charged with "failure to act". It makes sense to me that if an officer of the law were proven to have knowingly allowed a crime to be committed without responding, then the officer might be charged as such. 

As for a citizen initiating criminal charges, that may be true (don't know), but I believe that nothing compels a judge to hear a case when they think it is without merit.  And we all know what happens then...

[OldManSchmidt]

OMS, I can't see an action carried out in the name of self-protection (or the protection of one's property) as being assault, attempted murder, or murder.

I can't either...Probably why I have never been asked to be a Cook County, Illinois prosecuting attorney.  I personally think any death of a bad guy resulting from a defensive shooting should be ruled "suicide by stupidity."  No crime committed by the shooter, no grounds for a civil suit, and the BG's life insurance probably won't pay off either.  Justice served all the way around.

Reality is something else again.  Look at that guy in NYC on the subway a few years ago.  It was clearly a self defense shooting with not other course of action possible.  The DA knew he'd never get a jury conviction on murder, so he dropped that charge and instead managed to nail the guy on unlawful possession of a firearm.  IIRC, that charge is also a felony in NYC.  The net result is that the guy still got shafted but served a little less jail time.