Bad Shoot - Man Faces Manslaughter Charges

[BasketOfBullzeye]

Sound advice. He's lucky the only shot bystander happened to not be innocent. The same laws were broken either way, but the jury is likely going to feel less compassion towards the dead burglar than an innocent child playing nearby.


My first thought when I read "tried to shoot out the rubber tires with a .45acp" was, he's lucky he didn't shoot himself I kid I kid... kind of. Doesn't really sound like the caliber of choice for tire shooting though.

Haha. I had thought a .45 ACP round would be too slow to catch up to a moving vehicle.

[BAJ475]

Sounds like he's a pretty good shot.

No, he said he was trying to shoot the tires!

[CandG]

No, he said he was trying to shoot the tires!

So he's both a good shot and a good storyteller

[dekul34]

You may be right about what some people think. For the edification of "average people," I'd like to point out that manslaughter does not require specific intent to kill. The California jury instructions state that manslaughter requires:

1. The defendant (committed a crime that posed a high risk of death or great bodily injury because of the way in which it was committed/ [or] committed a lawful act, but acted with criminal negligence);

AND

2. The defendant's acts unlawfully caused the death of another person.

Discharging a firearm within a city is a crime, and if you kill someone while doing it, then the discharge caused the death, which means your going to prison. There is no specific intent requirement.

Self defense requires:

1. The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/ [or] <insert name or description of third party>) was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury [or was in imminent danger of being (raped/maimed/robbed/ <insert other forcible and atrocious crime>)];

2. The defendant reasonably believed that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend against that danger;

AND

3. The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger.

In a nutshell, self-defense requires reasonable force in the face of imminent peril to life or limb.

I know there's a vigilante element in all of us, but the thought of harming an innocent person in a self-defense shooting is horrifying enough in a righteous situation, but running that risk when your life is not in danger is unquestionably immoral and illegal. If someone reading this thinks they can use their firearm to shoot the tires of a fleeing thief if there is no imminent threat of harm, please consider these laws, as well as your ability to hit a stationary target at 7 yards, much less a moving car.

Morally you are very correct that this situation presented way more risk than reward in engaging the 'would be thieves'. Legally, it depends greatly on state, in Texas he'd probably have a much better shot at getting off than in MN and definitely more then the true liberal regimes.

Had a similar case when I was in AZ, just outside my workplace there was gunfire and it turned out that the owner of a jewelry store had chased out a thief who had come into the store and pepper sprayed the owner's wife (who was operating the counter) in order to steal some jewelry and run. Once outside the thief had no weapon, and was only running to his car when the owner fired at him several times.

The downside was that he was fleeing towards a public park and directly across the park was a high school. Several of the shop owner's rounds missed the suspect and his car and flew across the park full of playing children and struck the high school building, but somehow the store owner was not charged with anything... because AZ is highly unsympathetic to criminals getting shot at in general, despite the fact that the store owner placed dozens of children in jeopardy and no longer being actually in fear of imminent danger to himself or others. Point is, the differences between a good shoot and a legal shoot can be quite large.

[calif 15-22]

Haha. I had thought a .45 ACP round would be too slow to catch up to a moving vehicle.

^^^^ Now that is funny! ^^^^
Well played!