Oklahoma City Man Kills Fleeing Carjacker

[thallub]

and gets charged with murder.

i wonder what, if any, training this shooter had.

My only problem with the OK "constitutional carry" law is the fact that no training is required prior to carrying a firearm. Our local legislator voted against the law for that very reason.


"OKLAHOMA CITY —
A man who shot the person who was stealing his car over the Fourth of July weekend has been arrested for murder, putting Oklahoma’s “Stand Your Ground” laws to the test.

The shooting happened off Southwest 59th Street and South Francis Avenue. Officers said the thief was driving away when he was shot."

https://www.koco.com/article/oklahoma-stand-your-ground-shooting-car-thief-police/40561444


Mods: Feel free to move or delete this thread.

 

[Skippy]

*Should* have training? Most certainly. *Required?* That's a slippery slope.

Perhaps gun shop owners could mandate (or at least offer) a free, basic firearm class with every firearm purchase for first-time buyers. That would be a start and possibly protect the dealer from litigation.

Goes without saying, firearms can be purchased many ways besides FTF with a FFL dealer.

_______________
*I'd give right arm to be ambidextrous*

 

[Onward Allusion]

Criminals know that they have the upper hand when it comes to property crime. Prime examples are the groups of looters pillaging high-end retail stores. Even if a cop manages to arrest them, they are released within 24 hours.

I'm guessing that even if the vehicle's owner "just" shot the carjacker w/o killing him, the owner would still have been charged with some type of crime. The cards are stacked against the law abiding.

 

[Rob228]

Officers said the thief was driving away when he was shot.

That's the problem right there. No threat at that point, not standing his ground either.

 

[L. Boscoe]

Yep, never allowed to kill a departing thief unless he has your child with him.
Can't kill for property crimes, although I seem to remember Texas has a law that if someone is on your land and threatens you you can kill him-is that so?

 

[JERRYS.]

what other constitutionally protected right should require training before exercising? more people have died as a result of how people have voted than by how decent private citizens have wielded guns.

 

[JohnKSa]

...putting Oklahoma’s “Stand Your Ground” laws to the test.

As already mentioned, this case has nothing to do with the SYG laws.

One simple test that helps determine if deadly force is justified.

If the action taken is punitive or taken in revenge--to punish or to "get back" at the offender then that's a very bad sign. It should only be taken to PREVENT someone from carrying through a deadly/potentially deadly attack.

If it is being done to STOP/PREVENT then it may be justified. If it is being done to punish or take revenge after an attack then it is not justified.

 

[JERRYS.]

the threat to the life or immediate safety of himself or an innocent third party was or was not at play. that will be the deciding factor.

 

[101combatvet]

*Should* have training? Most certainly. *Required?* That's a slippery slope.

Perhaps gun shop owners could mandate (or at least offer) a free, basic firearm class with every firearm purchase for first-time buyers. That would be a start and possibly protect the dealer from litigation.

Goes without saying, firearms can be purchased many ways besides FTF with a FFL dealer.

_______________
*I'd give right arm to be ambidextrous*

How about offering lessons in intelligence?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

My only problem with the OK "constitutional carry" law is the fact that no training is required prior to carrying a firearm. Our local legislator voted against the law for that very reason.

Speaking as a certified handgun instructor, I can't agree with you. Your position is not supported by the Constitution:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Bearing arms is a right, not a privilege, and the 2A doesn't say we require training before being allowed to exercise the right. It also doesn't say we need a license or permit from a state, which is something that (thankfully) more states are finally recognizing.

 

[44 AMP]

One simple test that helps determine if deadly force is justified.

If the action taken is punitive or taken in revenge--to punish or to "get back" at the offender then that's a very bad sign. It should only be taken to PREVENT someone from carrying through a deadly/potentially deadly attack.

Agreed, as a general rule/guideline.

Now, here's where it could be sticky. Bad guy is driving away... driving, one would assume a motor vehicle, a car, truck, or something like that...

SO, isn't it possible to consider that the offender is now fleeing the scene, armed with a deadly weapon?? (the car)

I believe that could be a situation where a cop might be justified shooting (or might not be) but a private citizen probably wouldn't be considered justified shooting, absent certain special and rare circumstances.

Police frequently shoot people who attack them with cars. Sometimes even when it appears to a casual onlooker that the cop simply could have jumped or even stepped out of the way. If the driver survives to be charged, are they not charged with ADW? or attempted murder???

The police, being an arm of the state have greater legal leeway about when they can shoot than a private citizen does.

It will be up to the district attorney to determine whether French’s life was in danger when he fired or whether to push forward with a murder charge.

This is where the DA's interpretation of the law, and the facts of the case will determine what, if any charges are pressed. IF the ruling is that as a private citizen you are only justified shooting to protect YOUR life, then you are not justified shooting a fleeing badguy, even if they are armed, IF YOUR life is not in danger. And if you do, then YOU are breaking the law.

You and I are not justified shooting to stop the badguy from getting away. No matter what one sees all the time on TV, its not legal. Police have different rules.

I know of one case where a bad guy was shot, in the back (twice, if I remember right) as he was running away. The citizen was not even charged. The reason was that the bad guy was shooting back while running away, therefore, still a deadly threat, even though he was fleeing.

Those cases are rare, but do happen. This case seems likely to be ruled the fleeing offender was not a threat, and therefore the law was broken.

 

[JohnKSa]

SO, isn't it possible to consider that the offender is now fleeing the scene, armed with a deadly weapon?? (the car)

This is not talking about self-defense anymore. I posted my earlier response in kind of a hurry, and now I see that I did not explicitly state that I was talking about self-defense although that was my intent.

The police generally have the power, under certain narrow circumstances to shoot a fleeing felon if they believe they pose an imminent deadly threat to the general public. Depending on the circumstances, a citizen might be able to convince a jury that they have the same kind of power. The circumstances would have to be quite extreme for that to be an effective argument. It's not something I would want to bet my freedom and life's savings on in general.

Perhaps if the attacker had been obviously committing a mass shooting and left the scene still armed, that kind of reasoning would be convincing and effective.

 

[tangolima]

The legality of self defense is a rather high bar. Innocence, imminence, avoidance, proportionality, and reasonableness. All 5 need to be met simultaneously, or one could be charged for a crime with firearm rider. Not worth it for property loss of any sort.

I don't see how this case has much to do with "stand your ground". It waives the essence of avoidance. But most likely that's not the issue here.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[44 AMP]

I don't see how this case has much to do with "stand your ground"

Nor I. It might be a desperate ploy by the defense, throwing everything possible in the hope something sticks.

Generally speaking, "stand your ground" laws deal with just that, your legal duty to retreat, or not.

Shooting the guy who has just stolen your car and is driving off in it is not any degree of "retreat" that I can see.

 

[Pahoo]

Voluntary but not Mandatory

Perhaps gun shop owners could mandate (or at least offer) a free, basic firearm class with every firearm purchase for first-time buyers. That would be a start and possibly protect the dealer from litigation.

I suggested this, in an early thread and it was not listed as a requirement as I find "requirement/mandatory" to be anti-2A. I suggested that it be an option that would be voluntary at no cost to the buyer. Most replies were negative. ......

I am a hunter safety instructor and during our classroom training, I address safe firearm handling rules and guidelines. Then during our live fire period, we repeat these rules and practice what we teach. I do believe in training but not that it be "MANDATORY". ......

I've stated this before but during one of our classes of about 25-folks, we were informed that there were two students that were ordered by the courts, to attend our classes. No details were given and none were needed ..

Be Safe !!!

 

[TailGator]

I can't conceive of a situation in which shooting at a car is a good idea, from my perspective. If it is a car theft being carried out, I'm not going to take a life to get my car back with bullet holes and blood all over it. If my granddaughters (the world's cutest, by the way) are in the car, no way I'm throwing lead in their direction. If it is a carjacking, I'm going to be shooting way before the car drives away, especially if the granddaughters are involved. Even if a car is coming at me aggressively, I don't see how an incapacitated driver helps the situation usually.

I'm always for the good guys, but this doesn't sound like a justified or wise shoot.

 

[shafter]

There was a time when a horse thief could be shot or hung on sight but those days are long gone. While I would potentially shoot someone driving towards me with a car I would not shoot someone driving away from me. My vehicle is insured and there is nothing inside that I can't replace fairly easily.

 

[4V50 Gary]

Hardly a "stand your ground" case. The thief would have to be trying to run him over for that to apply but per the report the thief was fleeing.

What shafter said about the car being used to ram you is correct. Deadly force is justified to prevent GBI or death. Had a coworker fire his shotgun at a stolen car that was "going his way." Good chute. However, the car in question was going away and not toward. Bad chute.

Now, if it was the Common Law, you could use deadly force to retrieve chattel (personal property). Shafter mentioned that a horse thief could be shot and that is correct. The reasoning behind it was if a cowboy's horse was stolen, it denied him his livelihood (so he'll die) or ensured that he would die in the middle of nowhere. Hence the use of deadly force was seen as entirely reasonable back then. This has been superceded by statutory law; so no deadly force to git your TV back (and besides, the thief may be doing you a favor).

 

[tangolima]

Even the vehicle is trying to run over you, you may still have hard time arguing reasonableness. Isn't it easier to step aside than shooting the vehicle stop? Isn't it a reasonable man would do?

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[4V50 Gary]

That's true. Could one run up a flight of steps to avoid the oncoming car? If so, chut'n won't look so good. Stepping aside only means something if you can step behind some immovable object that will offer protection against a moving vehicle. Crazed drivers can still steer toward the victim despite the victim's flight.

I for one will not hide behind a car expecting it to stop another car. We've all seen accidents where cars act like billiard balls. Now, if there was an M-1 Abrams I can hide behind, that's different.