GOOD: Car Jacker Shot By Car Owner - Memphis, TN - Page 2

GOOD: Car Jacker Shot By Car Owner - Memphis, TN

This is a discussion on GOOD: Car Jacker Shot By Car Owner - Memphis, TN within the In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly forums, part of the The Back Porch category; Is Memphis, TN, like Texas in that a property owner can legally use deadly force to defend that property?...

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 49

Thread: GOOD: Car Jacker Shot By Car Owner - Memphis, TN

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,271

    Question

    Is Memphis, TN, like Texas in that a property owner can legally use deadly force to defend that property?
    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, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.


  2. #17
    Senior Member Array dcb188's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Mid-Cape Cod, Mass.
    Posts
    861
    Well, it is not only property, is what I was thinking, because the BG was told several times to come on out, did not do so, ignored it, did not show his hands etc so it is not solely about property but escalated a little bit towards personal safety defense, not a whole lot but enough, in my opinion.
    Sure, if the owner came out and saw a guy rummaging around in his vehicle and shot him, that would be different, but that is not exactly what occurred here. The BG actions and refusal and the rest etc changed it a little bit. So it went from property defense to a slightly higher level. Anyone agree with me?
    Surrounded and outnumbered, Marine Col Lewis Puller: "Good! We finally got 'em where we want 'em!" (Korea, 1950)
    __________________________________
    Right is Wrong and Wrong is Right.
    __________________________________
    Socrates : "Knowledge is knowing that we know nothing".

  3. #18
    VIP Member Array David in FL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    2,342
    Quote Originally Posted by dcb188 View Post
    Well, it is not only property, is what I was thinking, because the BG was told several times to come on out, did not do so, ignored it, did not show his hands etc so it is not solely about property but escalated a little bit towards personal safety defense, not a whole lot but enough, in my opinion.
    Sure, if the owner came out and saw a guy rummaging around in his vehicle and shot him, that would be different, but that is not exactly what occurred here. The BG actions and refusal and the rest etc changed it a little bit. So it went from property defense to a slightly higher level. Anyone agree with me?
    Sorry, not me. He could have been drunk and thought he was rummaging around in his own car as far as the homeowner knew.

    I think he'll be awfully lucky not to be charged......and even luckier if he doesn't face a civil suit from the knucklehead!

  4. #19
    Senior Member Array dcb188's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Mid-Cape Cod, Mass.
    Posts
    861
    I thought it went up a little bit away from mere personal property protection because of those factors, as I said, not a whole lot but enough.
    The BG could have been a lot of things but in reality it was probably that he was doing a B&E of a motor vehicle. As to his ignoring repeated commands to cease and desist and not show his hands, well.......this is what distinguishes it from a run of the mill defense of property. Just a little, not a whole lot.
    If I were on the jury I would vote to acquit the GG. He should consider himself lucky but I would still vote for acquittal.
    Surrounded and outnumbered, Marine Col Lewis Puller: "Good! We finally got 'em where we want 'em!" (Korea, 1950)
    __________________________________
    Right is Wrong and Wrong is Right.
    __________________________________
    Socrates : "Knowledge is knowing that we know nothing".

  5. #20
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    28,271
    Quote Originally Posted by dcb188 View Post
    As to his ignoring repeated commands to cease and desist and not show his hands, well.......this is what distinguishes it from a run of the mill defense of property. Just a little, not a whole lot.
    So, in Massachussets, what would likely happen to someone who shot a person in the bum, while has back was turned, when he had offered up no overt violence or movement toward the property owner? No Bill from the Grand Jury? Something less?
    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, SAF, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  6. #21
    Senior Member Array dcb188's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Mid-Cape Cod, Mass.
    Posts
    861
    It wasn't that he offered violence or movement. It was because he did NOT move out of the vehicle and stayed with his back to the owner, and the owner could still not see his hands. This, in a reasonable person's mind, ratchets it up just a little toward now wondering, well, what is this guy going to DO now?
    Did the guy become a little bit more of a threat then?
    If you go out to your garage and some guy is rummaging around in a box, and his back is toward you and you repeat commands to him to turn around and he not only ignores you but his back is to you and his hands are still not visible to you, then don't you think your personal safety is slightly slightly more of an issue than it was when you FIRST saw him around the box? What I am saying is that it goes up a little bit from mere property protection as now you should be a little bit concerned for your own safety now that this guy is still with his back to you with hands concealed....I think in real life you would go from hey he is rummaging thru my stuff, to hey, will this guy turn around and shoot me? It can be maintained that you know what he is doing and thinking but I don't think that is possible.
    We cannot go by what Mass. would do, as they convict the innocent and let the guilty go, all the time, especially and most notoriously in Boston (Suffolk County). Judges are continually astounded at jury verdicts there.
    The jury might find you guilty even if they guy had a gun and turned around toward you, for all we know. The scariest part of trying cases here is that no one knows what the jury will do, ever, no matter how obvious it is to everyone in the courtroom.
    So Mass can not be used in any example except for talking about the complete unpredicability of a jury doing the right thing.
    It is crucial to note that I am always using the expression here "just a little" because I think it is JUST enough to make the jury find him not guilty. Not a whole lot, but just barely enough.
    And actually, only a nut would just completely ignore verbal commands like that, enough to make you wonder if the guy could whip around with a knife or a hammer and be on you in a second. Stranger things have actually happened.
    Surrounded and outnumbered, Marine Col Lewis Puller: "Good! We finally got 'em where we want 'em!" (Korea, 1950)
    __________________________________
    Right is Wrong and Wrong is Right.
    __________________________________
    Socrates : "Knowledge is knowing that we know nothing".

  7. #22
    VIP Member Array David in FL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    2,342
    Quote Originally Posted by dcb188 View Post
    It wasn't that he offered violence or movement. It was because he did NOT move out of the vehicle and stayed with his back to the owner, and the owner could still not see his hands. This, in a reasonable person's mind, ratchets it up just a little toward now wondering, well, what is this guy going to DO now?
    Did the guy become a little bit more of a threat then?
    If you go out to your garage and some guy is rummaging around in a box, and his back is toward you and you repeat commands to him to turn around and he not only ignores you but his back is to you and his hands are still not visible to you, then don't you think your personal safety is slightly slightly more of an issue than it was when you FIRST saw him around the box? What I am saying is that it goes up a little bit from mere property protection as now you should be a little bit concerned for your own safety now that this guy is still with his back to you with hands concealed....I think in real life you would go from hey he is rummaging thru my stuff, to hey, will this guy turn around and shoot me? It can be maintained that you know what he is doing and thinking but I don't think that is possible.
    We cannot go by what Mass. would do, as they convict the innocent and let the guilty go, all the time, especially and most notoriously in Boston (Suffolk County). Judges are continually astounded at jury verdicts there.
    The jury might find you guilty even if they guy had a gun and turned around toward you, for all we know. The scariest part of trying cases here is that no one knows what the jury will do, ever, no matter how obvious it is to everyone in the courtroom.
    So Mass can not be used in any example except for talking about the complete unpredicability of a jury doing the right thing.
    It is crucial to note that I am always using the expression here "just a little" because I think it is JUST enough to make the jury find him not guilty. Not a whole lot, but just barely enough.
    And actually, only a nut would just completely ignore verbal commands like that, enough to make you wonder if the guy could whip around with a knife or a hammer and be on you in a second. Stranger things have actually happened.
    Don't get me wrong, I think the BG got exactly what he deserved, but most deadly force statutes require that in order to respond with deadly force, you must be able to demonstrate that you were in fear of serious bodily harm or for your life.

    Even in a state like FL with a GREAT castle doctrine on the books, unauthorized entry to a vehicle only becomes a valid CD defense if the vehicle is occupied at the time.

    With the non-response by the BG, did the threat level elevate a bit? Probably. Did it elevate to the point where deadly force should have been used? I just can't convince myself of that. I'm sure that an attorney with your experience could come up with all sorts of explanations for that......

  8. #23
    Senior Member Array dcb188's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Mid-Cape Cod, Mass.
    Posts
    861
    I respect all your posts, I want you to know that, and I don't need to butter you up etc :) We disagree, but just barely, if there is such a thing. It is not simply a case of unauthorized entry of a mv. The scenario is more than that.
    I like that, an attorney with my experience, like I have any great experience. I am a novice and always will be. I have defendants tell me all the time, oh a jury could never convict ME. And I tell them, hey, I would not trust a juror here to go across and get me a tuna sandwich because they just might bring me back a pizza. And the defendant laughs but he is not real anxious to be tried by a jury of "his peers". These jurors are off the wall.
    But back to our scenario: If the owner came out, saw a guy in his car, blam, no question, cannot do that, should not do that, will be punished for it.
    But we cannot call this particular scenario just a mv entry, because the facts of the case show that it is more than that, however slightly. The main point being that the BG has made it so that they owner feels a little jumpy now, or should, when someone has no reaction to commands. Liable to do anything to owner any second. Maybe and maybe not but the potential is there and it is a little more than a mv entry.
    And I think it is really significant that he was shot in the buttocks and not the head or chest and that was done by design by the owner, I think. That also changes it quite a bit as to owner's intention, stopping BG but NOT by deadly force necessarily.
    So as I keep saying, if GG is justified, it is only barely. So you and I agree in a way and disagree in another way but it is only a matter of degree.....
    To be honest, the GG should have gone back in the house and called 911. I think he was a little trigger happy, but at least he appears not to have shot to kill. You may disagree but that is the way I see it. I think a jury should find him NG. We have talked about the scenario but what do you think the verdict itself should be, David? I am disturbed by GGs actions but not enough to convict him.
    Surrounded and outnumbered, Marine Col Lewis Puller: "Good! We finally got 'em where we want 'em!" (Korea, 1950)
    __________________________________
    Right is Wrong and Wrong is Right.
    __________________________________
    Socrates : "Knowledge is knowing that we know nothing".

  9. #24
    VIP Member Array Kerbouchard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,894
    He shot a man who was actively breaking into his car, while on his property. I am appalled that some of you CHOOSE to live in a state where that is even remotely iffy.

    Good job to the home owner!
    There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.

    http://miscmusings.townhall.com/

    Who is John Galt?

  10. #25
    Senior Member Array dcb188's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Mid-Cape Cod, Mass.
    Posts
    861
    I wish I could move :) I must say that I lived in Texas and Texas is the way America used to be when it had its common sense. Texas juries are ten million times more likely to do the right thing than in many many other states. It is a different world where you are, not that it is the only state like that but it sure beats some of these states where right from wrong is not really all that simple a choice.
    Surrounded and outnumbered, Marine Col Lewis Puller: "Good! We finally got 'em where we want 'em!" (Korea, 1950)
    __________________________________
    Right is Wrong and Wrong is Right.
    __________________________________
    Socrates : "Knowledge is knowing that we know nothing".

  11. #26
    VIP Member Array tns0038's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerbouchard View Post
    He shot a man who was actively breaking into his car, while on his property. I am appalled that some of you CHOOSE to live in a state where that is even remotely iffy.

    Good job to the home owner!


    I totally agree.

    While I would hate to shoot anyone, the BG brought it upon himself, when he refused to get out of the vehicle and keep his hands in plain site.

    The down side would be cleaning up the bloody mess.

  12. #27
    VIP Member Array David in FL's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Central Florida
    Posts
    2,342
    Quote Originally Posted by dcb188 View Post

    And I think it is really significant that he was shot in the buttocks and not the head or chest and that was done by design by the owner, I think. That also changes it quite a bit as to owner's intention, stopping BG but NOT by deadly force necessarily.
    So as I keep saying, if GG is justified, it is only barely. So you and I agree in a way and disagree in another way but it is only a matter of degree.....

    To be honest, the GG should have gone back in the house and called 911. I think he was a little trigger happy, but at least he appears not to have shot to kill. You may disagree but that is the way I see it. I think a jury should find him NG. We have talked about the scenario but what do you think the verdict itself should be, David? I am disturbed by GGs actions but not enough to convict him.

    Disclaimer.....I don't know TN state law, so in order to give the home owner as much latitude as possible, I'll operate under the assumption that it's similar to FL.....one of the most self-defense/gun friendly states out there. If there's a significant difference, I'd ask for some of the TN peeps to set me straight.....

    The only reason I mentioned the act of breaking into the car specifically, is because if the car is occupied, in the great state of FL, the Castle Doctrine kicks in and it's presumed that the BG is attempting to cause you serious bodily harm or death and as a result you're within your rights to respond with deadly force without having any other evidence to support that presumption. Unfortunately, in this case the vehicle was unoccupied so there wouldn't be any protection afforded to the GG under the Castle Doctrine (at least FL's) in that scenario

    To my knowlege, where you shoot someone doesn't change the designation of deadly/non-deadly force. In fact, even firing a warning shot can be construed as the use of deadly force. So I don't think that the fact that he shot the BG in the butt mitigates the fact that he actually shot him without being in fear for his own life.

    If he were to be charged/tried, I think it's likely that he'd be found guilty of an excessive use of force. If I were on the jury, I'd try hard to nullify that though......and then buy the guy a beer afterwards!

  13. #28
    Distinguished Member Array Reborn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Rowlett, Texas
    Posts
    1,739
    Quote Originally Posted by PatrioticRick View Post
    He was aiming for his head, but his butt was in the way.
    Maybe they look so much alike he thought he was shooting him in the head.........the smell gave it away..........
    Last edited by Reborn; May 19th, 2008 at 12:00 PM. Reason: spelling
    Psalms 144:1
    Blessed be the Lord my strength, which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight.
    Senior Instructor for Tactical and Defensive of Texas
    http://www.tac-def-tx.com/
    CHL INSTRUCTOR
    Retired LEO
    NRA member
    TCHA member

  14. #29
    Senior Member Array dcb188's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Mid-Cape Cod, Mass.
    Posts
    861
    DavidinFL: I mean to a jury it would make a difference, not under any legal doctrine but the jury would be impressed that the GG did not walk up and put one in the BG head point-blank range. So I meant just that the jury will see that GG did not intend and did not in fact, inflict the damage he could have done and actually did show some restraint.
    And I think he did have some fear for his own life/safety. Enough for a jury to find him NG.
    I would buy him a beer before and afterwards :) Maybe two.
    But the GG was skating on thin ice. Next time, the 911 call will be placed. And there probably will be a next time.
    Surrounded and outnumbered, Marine Col Lewis Puller: "Good! We finally got 'em where we want 'em!" (Korea, 1950)
    __________________________________
    Right is Wrong and Wrong is Right.
    __________________________________
    Socrates : "Knowledge is knowing that we know nothing".

  15. #30
    Member Array nasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by ccw9mm View Post
    So, in Massachussets, what would likely happen to someone who shot a person in the bum, while has back was turned, when he had offered up no overt violence or movement toward the property owner? No Bill from the Grand Jury? Something less?
    Not sure who responded here/how already, but my opinion is, given the attitudes in Mass, the shooter would be in prison for sure.

    Take care,

    nasm

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Sponsored 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
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Utterly stupid: Memphis teen shot in behind over sagging pants
    By msgt/ret in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: October 6th, 2010, 05:29 PM
  2. Memphis Police recruit shot in the arm
    By orangevol in forum Basic Gun Handling & Safety
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: August 14th, 2009, 12:22 AM
  3. Memphis - Man Shot & Killed After Answering Door
    By cop2b in forum Carry & Defensive Scenarios
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: November 9th, 2008, 12:40 PM
  4. Memphis burglar shot by homeowner
    By citizen510 in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: January 26th, 2008, 08:23 PM
  5. Memphis Home Invasion, Home Owner Shot
    By citizen510 in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: January 23rd, 2008, 09:55 AM

Search tags for this page

by car owner memphis

,

transporting hangun tn 39-11-621

Click on a term to search for related topics.