[DGU] The 'Defensive Gun Use' Thread

[TheGrumpyGuy]

I think the crime rate follows the temperature graph.

Sure doesn't seem to be making much difference with the number of shootings here lately

 

[KellyinAvon]

Chicago

I guess a gender studies degree is a get out of jail, free card in Chicago.

Almost a year ago, on 06 February 2023 a homeowner caught a burglar in his garage and held him at gunpoint until the cops got there. Amazingly, that was only about 45 seconds, apparently the cops were in the neighborhood. Well done all around.

But the burglar’scase didn’t come up until couple days ago, he pleaded guilty, and the judge sentenced him to… Probation.

This is all the more amazing because he was already on probation before the burglary for some kind of arson. Which court records note that he didn’t complete satisfactorily.

He’s 31 years old, homeless, with a degree from UI in psychology and women and gender studies.

Burglar held at gunpoint by concealed carry holder gets probation (He was on probation for something else at the time of the burglary)

Tyler Hamlin was charged with burglary last February after a concealed carry holder interrupted the break-in and held him at gunpoint until Chicago police arrived. This week, a judge sentenced Hamlin to probation.

cwbchicago.com

Get a women and gender studies degree: end up homeless. That checks out.

 

[Alamo]

Houston Texas

Armed miscreant robs man and woman sitting in their car at a gas station. Third-party Good Samaritan gets out of his car and shoots the robber, according to the police as the robber was fleeing. Good Samaritan told man and woman to retrieve their stolen items, and then departed the scene. Robber went to the hospital with torso wound(s). Police have not yet located good Samaritan.

Could it be Taqueria Man?

 

[Doug]

This is not defensive gun use. The shooter was, apparently, not threatened and the one shot was not threatening anyone at the time he was shot. If found, the shooter will likely be charged. Unless you can articulate an active threat against you or another, don't shoot.
Just my opinion...

 

[actaeon277]

This is not defensive gun use. the shooter was, apparently, not threatened and the one shot was not threatening anyone at the time he was shot. If found, the shooter will likely be charged. Unless you can articulate an active threat against you or another, don't shoot.
Just my opinion...

Since the population is rapidly losing faith in the government and it's ability to administer "justice", I think you will see this more and more.

People may be mad at some sentences, or if they think the 'occasional' criminal is 'getting away with it', but as long as on the whole, they think justice is being administered, they will just complain and let the government do one of the actual jobs it was set up to perform.

But as they see more and more, released with no bail, arrested multiple times a day, or being released for what they view as BS reasons..

 

[2A_Tom]

This is not defensive gun use. the shooter was, apparently, not threatened and the one shot was not threatening anyone at the time he was shot. If found, the shooter will likely be charged. Unless you can articulate an active threat against you or another, don't shoot.
Just my opinion...

Texas laws are different.

 

[Doug]

Texas laws are different.

The old joke is, "Your Honor, he just needed killin'..." is justifiable homicide in Texas. Not sure that's true.
I was taught only LEO's could shoot fleeing felons.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Could it be Taqueria Man?

He didn't walk up and put another round in the robber, so I'm leaning towards no.

 

[Alamo]

Under Texas law using deadly force to defend a third party from imminent commission of robbery/agg robbery is justified.

Robbery = “in the course of committing theft” plus threat of or causing bodily injury. (Weapon or causing serious bodily injury or victim 65+ makes it aggravated)

"In the course of committing theft" means conduct that occurs in an attempt to commit, during the commission, or in immediate flight after the attempt or commission of theft.

also, early report, and obviously some unknowns. Did the robber point his gun at someone as he was fleeing? Was he actually even fleeing when he was shot or is that what he told police? Was he running toward the Good Samaritan as he was “fleeing?”

Just going by news reports, Texans seem to be sympathetic to people who shoot robbers and burglars. DAs know this. The current Harris County/Houston DA was elected as a Soros/woke lunatic, but she has since backed off to the extent that the democratic party is trying to found another woke lunatic DA to run against her in the primary. This would be the same DA who took the Taqueria Man to grand jury and obtained a no-bill.

 

[Doug]

"In the course of committing theft" means conduct that occurs in an attempt to commit, during the commission, or in immediate flight after the attempt or commission of theft.

Well, there you go. Sure looks justified under Texas law.

 

[dudley0]

"In the course of committing theft" means conduct that occurs in an attempt to commit, during the commission, or in immediate flight after the attempt or commission of theft.

Well, there you go. Sure looks justified under Texas law.

Wish it was Indiana law as well. Might change some minds before the crime is committed.

 

[Doug]

Wish it was Indiana law as well. Might change some minds before the crime is committed.

That assumes a mind that can conceive consequences.

 

[dudley0]

Then Darwin's law steps in I guess

 

[chipbennett]

Wish it was Indiana law as well. Might change some minds before the crime is committed.

I disagree. If the theft has occurred and the criminal is fleeing, the criminal no longer poses a threat of death or great bodily harm to the theft victim. Deadly force in self-defense should only be justified to stop such a threat. Shooting a fleeing thief is use of deadly force to stop theft.

 

[bobzilla]

I disagree. If the theft has occurred and the criminal is fleeing, the criminal no longer poses a threat of death or great bodily harm to the theft victim. Deadly force in self-defense should only be justified to stop such a threat. Shooting a fleeing thief is use of deadly force to stop theft.

I am not seeing the problem here? Illegal actions should have real consequences and the justice dept ain’t cutting it anymore.

 

[jamil]

I was taught only LEO's could shoot fleeing felons.

 

[dudley0]

I disagree. If the theft has occurred and the criminal is fleeing, the criminal no longer poses a threat of death or great bodily harm to the theft victim. Deadly force in self-defense should only be justified to stop such a threat. Shooting a fleeing thief is use of deadly force to stop theft.

When a person has no real reason to keep from committing a crime they tend to do it.

If that person has a higher chance of getting shot because of those actions then maybe they will reconsider those actions.

I know what the law is right now and I will follow it. I also do not agree with it.

Couple years back someone stole a trailer and a commercial mower from me. Insurance covered the mower and most of the tools I had in a lock box on the trailer. The trailer was not insured unless it was attached to my truck. I bought a replacement, which I do not like, out of my money. So I bought two trailers and have only one to show for it.

If I had pulled up while the trailer was being stolen I can not use deadly force on the person. That's the current law.

I'm not going to debate if a trailer is worth someone's life. But I will say that if the person who took it was worried about catching a slug because of it maybe, just maybe, they would not have done it. I worked hard for the money to get that trailer. I liked it. I miss it every time I have to use the replacement.

It pisses me off that someone can say that stealing, robbing, etc from someone doesn't count if they turn and run. They still did the deed. Now they keep the spoils and get more brazen for the next time.

I just think that TX has it right in this situation.

 

[wtburnette]

I disagree. If the theft has occurred and the criminal is fleeing, the criminal no longer poses a threat of death or great bodily harm to the theft victim. Deadly force in self-defense should only be justified to stop such a threat. Shooting a fleeing thief is use of deadly force to stop theft.

That was for a polite society where the police and the prosecutors did their jobs. That world no longer exists in most places in the US, especially in and around cities.

 

[Alamo]

Shooting a robber - that is to say someone who is identifying himself as a potential murderer - whether he’s coming or going is absolutely justified. You don’t know he’s finished threatening you until he is actually gone and out of range, and it is a bit much to expect the victim to make such fine distinctions as to read the robber’s mind to determine he‘s decided to not hurt or kill someone any more. If he's in range he’s a threat.

This is analagous to someone breaking into a home. The homeowner has no idea whether this person is going to “only” steal, or rape and kill — or change his mind halfway thru. The homeowner shouldn’t have to stooge around waiting to see if he’s going to kill before being able to legally defend himself.

Likewise once a robber has shown his violent flag it is foolish to assume he suddenly becomes non-violent because maybe he’s leaving. Too much opportunity to change his mind, too much burden to put on the victim to correctly deduce the robber’s intention from split-second behavior changes. Once the robber starts robbing he should forfeit the presumption of good intentions, and the victim should not have the onus of determining otherwise in the heat of the moment.

To prosecute a victim for shooting the “fleeing“ robber would gut victim’s right to self-defense, as it would make it way too easy for anti-self-defense DAs to bully the victim. If the result is truly “fleeing“ robbers get killed, this morally superior to even one innocent victim being hurt or killed.

 

[chipbennett]

I am not seeing the problem here? Illegal actions should have real consequences and the justice dept ain’t cutting it anymore.

So, you are in essence advocating for victim to be judge, jury, and executioner. Because in the scenario as-described, the threat of life/great bodily harm has ended. The use of deadly force is not employed to end said threat, because the one who may have posed such a threat has ended the threat.

No. I do not agree with that position.