Off duty FBI shoots car thief

This is a discussion on Off duty FBI shoots car thief within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Originally Posted by Bark'n Why is something in the backyard different than something in the front yard? Does Kentucky law differentiate between front yard and ...

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 42 of 42
Like Tree17Likes

Thread: Off duty FBI shoots car thief

  1. #31
    Distinguished Member Array DefConGun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    1,671
    Quote Originally Posted by Bark'n View Post
    Why is something in the backyard different than something in the front yard?

    Does Kentucky law differentiate between front yard and back yard of your property?
    Quote Originally Posted by atctimmy View Post
    I think because it's a structure, but I'm not sure.
    Actimmy is right...it doesn't have anything to do with front yard and back yard, it has to do with structure. I just said back yard because that's where my building is located.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #32
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    25,820
    Quote Originally Posted by DefConGun View Post
    I wouldn't be able to do this in KY. I could have a $50,000 Lexus in my driveway and some thugs can come along and burn it to the ground and I wouldn't be able to do anything ...
    Are you sure??

    In KY, a citizen has every lawful right to confront a criminal and demand he cease his crime (say, burglary/vandalism). If however the criminal chooses to then launch into a violent felony attack on a person for daring to catch him in the act, that's the FELON'S doing and a citizen has every right to defend against that second, subsequent violent act per KRS 503.050, 503.060, 503.080, even if the felon's actions became so threatening as to require the use of deadly force to stop it. IANAL and this isn't legal advice (of course), but it seems fairly straightforward:

    Quote Originally Posted by KRS 503.050 -- Use Of Physical Force In Self Protection
    KRS 503.050

    (1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by the other person.

    (2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable under subsection (1) only when the defendant believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious physical injury, kidnapping, sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat, felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055.
    ...
    (4) A person does not have a duty to retreat prior to the use of deadly physical force.
    Quote Originally Posted by KRS 503.060 -- Improper Use Of Physical Force In Self Protection
    KRS 503.060

    Notwithstanding the provisions of KRS 503.050, the use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is not justifiable when:

    ...
    (2) The defendant, with the intention of causing death or serious physical injury to the other person, provokes the use of physical force by such other person; or

    (3) The defendant was the initial aggressor, except that his use of physical force upon the other person under this circumstance is justifiable when:

    (a) His initial physical force was nondeadly and the force returned by the other is such that he believes himself to be in imminent danger of death or serious physical injury; or
    ...
    Quote Originally Posted by KRS 503.080 -- Protection Of Physical Property
    KRS 503.080

    (1) The use of physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable when the defendant believes that such force is immediately necessary to prevent:

    (a) The commission of criminal trespass, robbery, burglary, or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055, in a dwelling, building or upon real property in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts; or

    (b) Theft, criminal mischief, or any trespassory taking of tangible, movable property in his possession or in the possession of another person for whose protection he acts.

    (2) The use of deadly physical force by a defendant upon another person is justifiable under subsection (1) only when the defendant believes that the person against whom such force is used is:

    (a) Attempting to dispossess him of his dwelling otherwise than under a claim of right to its possession; or

    (b) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary, robbery, or other felony involving the use of force, or under those circumstances permitted pursuant to KRS 503.055, of such dwelling; or

    (c) Committing or attempting to commit arson of a dwelling or other building in his possession.

    (3) A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
    Of course, a less-than-honorable DA/judge might well attempt to misconstrue the actions as criminal provocation, unless the crimes are clear-cut and distinctly separate, unjustifiably escalated to a violent felony when a person dared ask they stop their actions. A risk, sure. As is the risk of serious injury from confronting a criminal in the act. But I'd think one would be absolutely justified in such a circumstance.
    Bark'n likes this.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  4. #33
    Distinguished Member Array DefConGun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    1,671
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    Are you sure??

    In KY, a citizen has every lawful right to confront a criminal and demand he cease his crime (say, burglary/vandalism). If however the criminal chooses to then launch into a violent felony attack on a person for daring to catch him in the act, that's the FELON'S doing and a citizen has every right to defend against that second, subsequent violent act per KRS 503.050, 503.060, 503.080, even if the felon's actions became so threatening as to require the use of deadly force to stop it. IANAL and this isn't legal advice (of course), but it seems fairly straightforward:




    Of course, a less-than-honorable DA/judge might well attempt to misconstrue the actions as criminal provocation, unless the crimes are clear-cut and distinctly separate, unjustifiably escalated to a violent felony when a person dared ask they stop their actions. A risk, sure. As is the risk of serious injury from confronting a criminal in the act. But I'd think one would be absolutely justified in such a circumstance.


    I understand what you're saying and this can, IMO, get into the "iffy" territory in a rather expedient fashion. We talked about this type of scenario in my carry concealed class. I think the danger in this scenario - is that the thugs that are trying to burn my car up aren't involved in a "felony involving the use of force" until I go out and cause the situation to escalate and in essence put myself in a situation where I have to defend myself. I can't just go out and shoot the guys on the spot for putting a match to my Lexus, but in KY I can shoot him on the spot if he's trying to put a flame to my building in my backyard. The thugs trying to burn my Lexus would have to attack me before I can justifiably shoot them. The original scenario in this thread has a man shooting the perps on the spot for breaking into his car and all I was trying to say is, I can't do this in KY - but I could if they were trying to burn a structure of mine, i.e., my house or building on my property. I hope this makes sense. The wording of this sounds a little funny to me but I'm not sure how to say it differently - at the moment.

  5. #34
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    25,820
    Quote Originally Posted by DefConGun View Post
    I think the danger in this scenario - is that the thugs that are trying to burn my car up aren't involved in a "felony involving the use of force" until I go out and cause the situation to escalate and in essence put myself in a situation where I have to defend myself.
    It's always a risk that the less-than-honorable among us will misconstrue things, sure. But a citizen's asking what a criminal's up to DOES NOT constitute escalation or intent to commit violence. It remains the choice of the criminal caught in the act whether to commit a second, unrelated violent felony crime against an innocent, even if that innocent just happens to be lawfully asking WTH is going on.

    The thugs trying to burn my Lexus would have to attack me before I can justifiably shoot them.
    Yes. But that wouldn't mean you'd criminally provoked a situation, nor that you had intent to use deadly force.

    Still, I understand what you're saying. Them's the choices.
    Bark'n likes this.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  6. #35
    Senior Member Array Cold Shot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    880
    Great. You don't mess with a man's automobile.

  7. #36
    Distinguished Member
    Array aznav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Harrisonburg, VA
    Posts
    1,582
    Mmm, I would think he's in deep kimchi. Shooting a non confrontational person in the back for stealing your radio is not justifiable no matter who you are. Me thinks his only free ticket would be if, as one posted, there were secret documents or firearms in the car - which begs the question, "Why did you leave them in your car, outside, overnight, in NYC!!!?"
    "The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." Eccl. 10:2

  8. #37
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by aznav View Post
    Mmm, I would think he's in deep kimchi. Shooting a non confrontational person in the back for stealing your radio is not justifiable no matter who you are. Me thinks his only free ticket would be if, as one posted, there were secret documents or firearms in the car - which begs the question, "Why did you leave them in your car, outside, overnight, in NYC!!!?"
    Asking why he left valuables in the car is like asking why a rape victim chose to wear revealing clothing. Or why a mugging victim was carrying so much money of wearing expensive jewelry. You are blaming the victim who has done nothing illegal.

    For your first comment.
    Shooting a non confrontational person in the back for stealing your radio is not justifiable
    Whether or not it is legally justifiable is totally up to the State laws where it happens. If you are saying that a human life is worth more than a radio I have to agree that the victims life is worth more than the radio. I cannot say that about the person stealing the radio. He is the one that decided his life was worth another persons radio.

    On the point that it was a LEO who shot the thief should also have no bearing in this case. The only thing that should matter is the law. The law should apply to him the same as it would to his non LEO neighbor.

    For one moment lets pretend that we are all equal under the law.

    Michael
    Last edited by mlr1m; July 21st, 2012 at 03:46 PM. Reason: I made an oopsie

  9. #38
    Senior Member Array velo99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Native Texan
    Posts
    642
    It's because the backyard isn't public access. Here if someone was stealing your car, yes, breaking in, maybe. The sherrif told just not to shoot them in the back.

  10. #39
    Distinguished Member
    Array aznav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Harrisonburg, VA
    Posts
    1,582
    "Asking why he left valuables in the car is like asking why a rape victim chose to wear revealing clothing. Or why a mugging victim was carrying so much money of wearing expensive jewelry. You are blaming the victim who has done nothing illegal."

    I'm looking at this as a prosecutor and not "the victim" - especially an LEO who would/should know better. I see your intent and, of course, it makes perfect sense. But when has an attorney/prosecutor based an argument on perfect sense?
    "The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." Eccl. 10:2

  11. #40
    Senior Member Array ep1953's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Kodak TN
    Posts
    1,100
    Quote Originally Posted by dukalmighty View Post
    In Tx we could blast him and get an attaboy from the Sheriff
    The way it should be EVERYWHERE!

  12. #41
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by aznav View Post
    "Asking why he left valuables in the car is like asking why a rape victim chose to wear revealing clothing. Or why a mugging victim was carrying so much money of wearing expensive jewelry. You are blaming the victim who has done nothing illegal."

    I'm looking at this as a prosecutor and not "the victim" - especially an LEO who would/should know better. I see your intent and, of course, it makes perfect sense. But when has an attorney/prosecutor based an argument on perfect sense?
    I understand your point. In fact many laws take that into account. I asked a LEO friend why a person who stole an unlocked car was charged with something to the effect of joy riding instead of grand theft. He informed me that they use the lesser charge if the car was unlocked. He said in the eyes of the law the car owner did not do his due diligence to protect the property from being stolen.

    When I pointed out that the 'joy rider' had been caught and released numerous times and that it appears it was the State that did not do their due diligence he agreed.

    Michael
    atctimmy likes this.

  13. #42
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Off duty FBI shoots car thief
    Back on topic. If the title had not mentioned that the shooter was a LEO would opinions be any different? Should we care who the person doing the shooting was or his job title? Should they matter?

    Michael

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

adrian ricketts shooting
,

adrian ricketts shot by fbi

,

can i shoot a car thief

,
can you shoot a car thief
,
can you shoot a thief is there stealing your car
,
fbi agent off duty shoots car thief
,

fbi agent shoots car thief

,
fbi shoots car thief
,
fbi shoots car thieves
,
fed shoots adrian ricketts
,
new york agent shoots car thief
,

shamarie jackson

Click on a term to search for related topics.