Memphis/Olive Branch carjacker shot, jailed (Merged)

[albundy]

I'm glad he did what he did. I think some one else would have got jacked if this thug got away. I was in Tunica when this happened and am pleased to hear there will be no charges filed.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Thumper]

Starting with leaving his weapon in his vehicle to the pursuit itself, Gray did not do the right thing.

Gray was very fortunate that an innocent person or persons was/were not hurt or killed, that the BG didn’t take a hostage, that a million other things didn’t happen as a result of pursuing the BG. Pursuit is the business of the police!

Gray’s actions were irresponsible. The threat no longer existed. Gray should have called the police.

I do not believe Gray was concerned with the welfare of others, I believe he was angry and wanted revenge.

What Gray did when he gave chase was in the truest sense to seek “vigilante justice”.

I do not condone bad and irresponsible behavior in a CCW’er.

True strength is demonstrated by “self control”!

[dang.45]

First, let me reiterate - anyone who uses a weapon to carjack anyone else (71 year old mother or otherwise) loses their right to life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness in my mind. A shot to the head, rather than to the leg / hip would have been preferred by me...

Having said that, my opinions & beliefs are in no way influenced by what the "anti gun crowd" might say or believe. Mr. Gray was in the wrong in this situation, period. I haven't seen it stated anywhere, but we can assume that Mr. Gray was probably speeding in his pursuit of the carjacker (since I assume the carjacker himself felt no need to start following the law only after he had assaulted a 71 year old woman for her car!), so he clearly did break at least one law. I know, I know, everyone speeds all the time. But come on - how is pursuit of a fleeing carjacker any different than running down the street, firing at a burglar who has left your home? Even if the burglar points a gun at you while he's running away, aren't you still the "aggressor" since you are the one chasing him??? I completely agree that you or I, or Mr. Gray, would be, let's say, pissed off (at least) to see a BG running away, but there is no longer any threat!

In addition, its not like this case sets some kind of precedent. If I am in a similar situation and do the same as Mr. Gray, I have to hope that I am in a jurisdiction where law enforcement at all levels is willing to ignore the law to ensure my freedom. I'd much rather live in an area where actions such as Mr. Gray's cannot possibly be construed as illegal, but that will require the re-writing of the law here in Northern MS & Shelby Co TN. Pressing charges against Mr. Gray due to a clear violation of the law could be the impetus the citizens of this way-too-violent portion of the world need to get up off their duffs and demand changes in the law that would make us all much happier - and safer!

Again, let me repeat - I want to live in an area where what Mr. Gray did is clearly protected by the law. The scumbag carjacker didn't get anywhere near what he deserved. But at the same time, how can it be ok to have to hope for a sympathetic law enforcement community (who were certainly influenced by the outpouring of support from the community for Mr. Gray) if any of us are ever faced with a similar situation?

I know it would be terrible for Mr. Gray to have to go to trial over this, but I also know that there is a 0% chance of him being convicted by any jury in this area. It would be much more beneficial to all of us to have this case be a rallying point around which we can organize to affect real change in the laws under which we live currently. Maybe laws will be changed &/or modified to make us all safer anyway, but somehow I doubt it...

Just my .02

[S3ymour]

Personally, I don't think the guy is nuts, I don't think he is "dangerous",nor do I think that he is a "vigilante" or an "ass" and it is quite interesting to me to see these words used here on a pro gun forum. I am somewhat shocked and amazed at the sheeple mentality shown in some of the comments here.

First of all, the guy didn't start the fight...he ended it.

Second of all, when you attempt to car jack someone, or you point a shotgun or any kind of a weapon at someone, then whatever happens after that, you asked for it and I don't care what consequences you suffer for it.

The man recovered his moms property and caught a felon. Why should the manner in which he did it matter? Kudos to the guy for having the stones to do it while others would have chose inaction and lamented about how radical the guy was for not letting some perp get away with threatening to kill his mother.

Lets see...THUG takes vehicle by force, displaying a shotgun in a threatening manner. Acquires vehicle and leaves. Two felonies right there.

Shooter attempts to recover property, shoots at armed fleeing felon, felon ditches vehicle, shooter apprehends felon, orders felon down on the ground, felon makes a move toward him and gets shot.

Awwwwwwwww....aint that terrible.
A few points here. We know that the perp is capable of using force as he has proved it. When he gets up and advances on the man holding a gun on him that has shot him at least once, are we expected NOT to shoot? I don't think so.

My only regret here is that the taxpayers will be out the room and board for quite some time. It would have been much cheaper for a funeral.

Eventually some of the thugs around there will figure that carjacking is a dangerous occupation.

As CHL instructor I would expect a little better than this. Just because we carry does not make us the new sheriff in town. Granted his mothers car was stolen, but her life and his were no longer being threatened. You should never chase someone down to get even as that is childish and unintelligent. I live in Ohio and if that were to happen here, he would have been in serious trouble. I believe in carrying at all times, but the minute you let emotions go you become irrational, you don't care about anything but getting the BG--this is when innocent people get hurt. Plus, had a cop seen to men in cars shooting at eachother, how do you think that could've ended up. I think that intelligent decisions should always be made in any situation, regardless of whether you carry or not. Being able to carry just means that we have more responsibility to make these intelligent decisions.

[fairway1]

So, I guess shooting a FLEEING bg in the back is now justified???

[citizen510]

So, I guess shooting a FLEEING bg in the back is now justified???

I think he shot him in the buttock. (Shades of Forrest Gump.)

[farronwolf]

So, I guess shooting a FLEEING bg in the back is now justified???

In Texas it is at times.

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(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.

[dang.45]

farronwolf-

Now that's the kind of wording I'm talking about! If we could get that here I would be one happy camper (Here being in Memphis/Olive Branch - the 'mid-south' generally...)

[citizen510]

This bill rewrites the present law provisions governing self-defense.

Under this bill, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where such person has a right to be would have no duty to retreat before:

(1) Threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force; or

(2) Threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury if the person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, the danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time, and the belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds.

Under this bill, there would be a presumption that a person who used force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within any residence or dwelling (as opposed to just that person's own residence as under present law) held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to self, family, a member of the household, or a person visiting as an invited guest. This presumption would apply when the force is used against another person who is not a member of the person's family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence or dwelling.

This above presumption would also apply when the force is exerted within an occupied vehicle if:

(1) The force is used against a person who unlawfully and forcibly enters the vehicle;

(2) The person using defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred; and

(3) Possession of the instrument used, if any, by the person to inflict defensive force did not violate any state or federal law.

The above presumption would not apply under the following circumstances:

(1) The person against whom the force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle;

(2) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to remove a person who is in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of the person against whom the defensive force is used;

(3) The person using force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or

(4) The person against whom force is used is a law enforcement officer who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of the officer's official duties and the officer identified himself in accordance with any applicable law, or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

Under this bill, the threat or use of force against another is not justified:

(1) If the person using force consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other individual;

(2) If the person using force provoked the other individual's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless the person using force abandons the encounter or clearly communicates to the other the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the person; or

(3) To resist a halt at a roadblock, arrest, search, or stop and frisk that the person using force knows is being made by a law enforcement officer, unless the law enforcement officer uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest, search, stop and frisk, or halt, and the person using force reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary to protect against the law enforcement officer's use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

This bill provides immunity from civil liability for a person who uses lawful force in defense of self, others, or property except when the force is used against a law enforcement officer acting in an official capacity who identified himself or when the person using the force knew or should have known that the person against whom force was used was a law enforcement officer.

The court would award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by a person in defense of any civil action brought against the person based upon that person's use of force if the court finds that the person's use of force was justified.

ON APRIL 26, 2007, THE HOUSE ADOPTED AMENDMENT #1 AND PASSED HOUSE BILL 1907, AS AMENDED.

AMENDMENT #1 applies the presumption that a person who used deadly force against an intruder who is not a member of the person's family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence or dwelling held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to situations where the intruder entered a motorized vehicle that is designed for use on public highways.

This amendment specifies that civil immunity for the use of justifiable force would not apply if the use of force resulted in property damage to or the death or injury of an innocent bystander or other person against whom the force used was not justified.

[joleary223]

"I have ever had the single aim of justice in view... 'Do equal and exact justice,' is my motto, and I have often said to the grand jury, 'Permit no innocent man to be punished, but let no guilty man escape.'"


Judge Isaac C. Parker, 1896

[S3ymour]

Hmmm... The laws in TN allow a lot more flexibility than in ohio. In Ohio you would be put away for a long time for chasing someone down like that regardless of whether the stole your vehicle or not.

[retsupt99]

So, I guess shooting a FLEEING bg in the back is now justified???

Fleeing from what? An ongoing crime was still in progress, and Mr. Gray stopped that progress...

Put a shotgun to my elderly parent's head, take the car...I'm going to follow you to the end of the earth, stop your progress, call 911, then call Restoration Specialists to clean the car...I'll deal with whatever happens after that...

Congrats to Mr. Gray...glad he's not being charged!

I'm basically a peaceful old man, but I'm very tired of the increasingly vicious crimes being committed my young thugs...EACH ONE needs his/her career ended...permanently.

Maybe some day I'll tell you how I REALLY feel...

[HotGuns]

The update to all this for tonight is that the D.A. has determined that he broke no law and will not be charged with anything.

Hey S3ymour....

The laws in TN allow a lot more flexibility than in Ohio. In Ohio you would be put away for a long time for chasing someone down like that regardless of whether the stole your vehicle or not.

No kidding.
You presume alot when you use the laws of your state to judge someone that acts by the laws of another.

Where you are at in Ohio, it may be a perfectly normal thing for someone to watch their Mother robbed at gunpoint and her vehicle stolen and not act because you have neutered by state law. Not only may it be illegal to pursue some gang banging thug there so that he may commit another crime, but it also serves as a great excuse by those that don't have the gumption or the skills to not lift a hand to help when one of their own when their life is threatened.So be it.

In other states it is not illegal and one has the legal ability to act. In many other states, force is allowable to stop a felony in progress, which this clearly was.

Like it or not, that is the way that it is. Even though you may "expect more "from a CHL instructor like myself, let me make something perfectly clear. Even though I helped draft some of the CHL for this state, and on occasion teach it to police officers in various Dept's,even I know and understand that I cannot apply what I know here to any event anywhere else in any other state.

Had you been in one of my classes, you would have known that but it is clear to me that you do not so pay attention here and learn. I'll even put it a different way for you. What is legal in another state may not be legal in yours. What it illegal in another state may be legal in yours.

FWIW, I will applaud the efforts of any good guy to win a battle over any thug, no matter how small or large the victory. When the law prevents doing what is right, it is time to change that law. Fortunately for the good guys, laws all over this country are being amended to favor the good guy instead of the bad guy which has been traditionally coddled and protected by the law.

People are getting tired of it. Personally, I think that any gang banging fool stupid enough to think he can get away with jacking someones car deserves to die, but that's just me.

BTW, thank you for expecting more from me. I always strive to do my best.

[citizen510]

"This amendment specifies that civil immunity for the use of justifiable force would not apply if the use of force resulted in property damage to or the death or injury of an innocent bystander or other person against whom the force used was not justified."

Hopefully, this part of the TN Castle Doctrine law will protect Mr. Gray from civil suit.

DA Gibbons gave 3 reasons for not pressing charges against Mr. Gray:
1. He did not do anything wrong according to TN Law.
2. He did not do anything wrong according to Shelby County Law.
3. He did not do anything wrong.

Mr. Gray might want to spend more time at the range with COM targets. That way "shooting to stop the threat" has some punch to it.

Luckily, this did not happen in OH, PA, NV, NC or any other state where defending oneself, ones family, ones property, etc. is unconstitutional and against the law and can get you put away for a long time. (I just threw up in my mouth a little. States with laws that limit the Right to defend oneself make me sick to my stomach.)

Come to Tennessee! It's the shoot anything anytime state!

HotGuns, Stand your ground! You have your head on straight.

[HotGuns]

HotGuns, Stand your ground! You have your head on straight.

I've got a sister in law that lives in Memphis that I go there to see occasionaly.
I've been to some spots in Memphis where having an AR-15,a 12 gauge and a .45 left me with the feeling that I might not have enough.