Aim for the Tires

[CT-Mike]

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0107tr-gun.html

A Tempe store owner's quick shooting reflexes resulted in the arrest of a suspected gun thief Saturday afternoon.

A customer removed a firearm from a display case in the store in the 900 block of South Priest Drive, near University Drive, according to Tempe police reports. The owner pointed his gun at the customer, demanding he return the gun. The customer returned the gun, but then took a .38 caliber revolver and left the store, according to reports.

The owner fired three shots at the customer's escaping vehicle, hitting a tire.

Police found Nathaniel Jones, 21, of Phoenix, trying to change the tire near University and Priest drives at about 2:23 p.m. A glass pipe and marijuana were found in his possession, police said.

He was arrested on suspicion of firearm theft and possession of drug paraphernalia.

Nice shooting.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[OPFOR]

I would be in a bunch of trouble with my agency if I did that. Perhaps I could articulate that the fleeing felon was an immediate threat - we know he had a gun, after all - but I'd have to be Atticus Finch to make that case...

I'm glad it ended well, but I am still strongly opposed (in most cases) to shooting at fleeing folks who do not pose an imminent threat, and who are guilty only of property crimes.

[jeephipwr]

And what did those perfectly good tires do to him?

[bandit383]

Like Opfor...I too question the judgement at a fleeing vehicle...

1) Does one know who else might be in the vehicle?

2) Is the vehicle a threat?

3) Can the description and license plate be taken instead?

4) What are one's chances of disabling a fleeing vehicle?

Nice shot??? 1 out of 3 and he hits the tire...he still got away. I'm curious what the store owner would of done if by chance he did stop the vehicle and the BG got out with an "assualt rifle"...but will save those thoughts for later.

Rick

[ccw9mm]

As of 9pm on 1/7/08, apparently both have been arrested, though the store owner was soon released pending a review by the prosecutor. It's a firearms shop. Across the street is a complex of ~300 homes. Hard to know which way the shooting went, or whether there was much (any) traffic on the street at the time, though it was Saturday afternoon. Acording to a few of the stories, the owner demanded return of the property, which was done, but then the owner shot at the fleeing suspect (or car) after that. Right or wrong, it does show how such action skates toward the gray area of the law's boundaries.

[Freedom Doc]

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who steals a gun from a gun store needs to be stopped ASAP. So +1 to the gun store owner. And, I would be willing to bet his charges will be dropped soon.

[tns0038]

I no longer work for any agency/department to get in trouble from, but I totally agree with OPFOR.

As a private citizen and not represented by the departments attorney, just hiring an attorney to represent me in questioning will cost $3,000 or more. If I’d been the store owner, I may have done the same thing. But, it would have had to be a very very clear shot.

[morintp]

Shooting at a fleeing BG is illegal in some(most?) states. On the other hand, if someone is stealing a gun, chances are they are going to use it for bad things. Tough call.

[joleary223]

if someone is stealing a gun, chances are they are going to use it for bad things. Tough call.

A good lawyer could argue you were saving a life or lives in the future. The question is do you want to need a lawyer and where did the other two rounds go?

[OPFOR]

On the other hand, if someone is stealing a gun, chances are they are going to use it for bad things. Tough call.

A good lawyer could argue you were saving a life or lives in the future.

By that token, someone stealing a car is going to run someone over, someone stealing a computer is going to commit identity fraud or promote child porn, someone stealing jewelry is going to sell it and buy a gun, and so on. We can't shoot someone based solely on what we think they might do in the future (absent any other evidence).

HAVING a gun is not grounds for shooting someone who doesn't pose an immediate threat - or else we'd all be VERY, VERY careful to keep concealed. Remember, possessing a gun is not a dangerous act, only USING it criminally or negligently is.

[friesepferd]

in some states comiting certain kinds of crime justifies lethal force. im pretty sure stealing a firearms falls under that.
what state did this occur in?

... either way, glad the guy stopped him.

[OPFOR]

in some states comiting certain kinds of crime justifies lethal force. im pretty sure stealing a firearms falls under that.
what state did this occur in?

... either way, glad the guy stopped him.

Well, the first line of the article is "A Tempe store owner," so I'm guessing it's Arizona!

I'd be very, very careful with that "pretty sure" legal advice. Shooting someone fleeing from a property crime is quite rarely legally justified. Once they are in their car and driving away, it becomes even less so. This event turned out OK - those other two rounds didn't kill anyone across the street, the thief didn't crash his car into a bus full of nuns, and so on...However, that doesn't make it legally or morally right.

The doctrine of competing harms has to enter into it - are you causing more damage by definitely firing your gun in an urban environment than you are preventing by possibly stopping someone who might possibly commit a violent crime at some point in the future? Just look the the New Year's Eve tragedy in Denver to see what can happen when you fire a weapon in an urban environment...

[friesepferd]

oh yea, by no means am i saying this guy didnt do something illegal. just something to consider. you always need to know the laws of where you are.
in any case, i highly doubt what he did was ok legally since he was already in the car driving off. i dont think the preventing a crime thing would work anywhere

[matiki]

Once they are in their car and driving away, it becomes even less so.

Sorry to split hairs here, but it doesn't say he was driving away. It just says "his escape vehicle". He very well could have been driving toward the shooter who ran out to get plate information etc. I think we should wait until the media is forced to be honest before passing judgment on this one.

[Janq]

Like Opfor...I too question the judgement at a fleeing vehicle...

1) Does one know who else might be in the vehicle?

2) Is the vehicle a threat?

3) Can the description and license plate be taken instead?

4) What are one's chances of disabling a fleeing vehicle?

Nice shot??? 1 out of 3 and he hits the tire...he still got away.

Agreed, you and OPFOR are on point.

As well all three rounds went somewhere before they stopped even the one that punctured the BGs tires. That somewhere is off into the wild amongst the general public.

- Janq would not have fired