Confusing Headline: Carjacking victim in Wisconsin who shot suspect, 13, charged with recklessly endangering safety

[Reptile]

Kenosha police say a 13-year-old attempted to carjack a vehicle but the owner opened fire​

Wisconsin authorities said Sunday that a 13-year-old female carjacking suspect, as well as a driver who shot at the girl attempting to make a getaway, will both face criminal charges.

The shooting happened around 5:30 p.m. Friday, after Kenosha Police say a person left a vehicle running and unattended at a gas station at 50th Street and Sheridan Road. A female juvenile allegedly stole the car and was driving away when the owner fired shots at the car, striking the girl, police said.

The girl, who has not been named by authorities, was transported to Children’s Hospital. She remained hospitalized as of Sunday, the Kenosha Police Department said in an update shared on Twitter, also announcing the 13-year-old will have charges referred to juvenile court.

The adult who shot her remained in custody as of Sunday on a single charge of first degree recklessly endangering safety. Police did not disclose whether that individual was male or female.

Fox News reached out for another update early Monday but did not immediately receive a response.

Kenosha, a city of about 99,000 people that sits on Lake Michigan, made national headlines last August as demonstrations broke out following the police shooting of Jacob Blake during a domestic disturbance call. The Black man was left paralyzed from the waist down. It wasn't until January that local prosecutors announced their decision not to charge any officers involved – and Blake allegedly later admitted he had a knife at the time.

Prosecutors said that then 17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse left his home in Antioch, Illinois, and traveled to Kenosha to answer a call for paramilitary groups to protect businesses amid the civil unrest last August. He is accused of killing two people and wounding a third during riots last summer – though his defense team has repeatedly maintained that he fired in self-defense.

Carjacking victim in Wisconsin who shot suspect, 13, charged with recklessly endangering safety

Wisconsin authorities said Sunday that a 13-year-old female carjacking suspect, and a driver who shot at the girl attempting to make a getaway, will both face criminal charges.

www.foxnews.com

 

[mac1911]

IDK what to think,
I know how I feel, blast the little scum bag stealing my shit
BUT taking pop shots at moving car speeding off. Im pretty sure getting charged with something.
It would not sit well with me if I ended up shooting someone else in the process.
Its only a car in the end.
Its just sad that 13yr old girl is stealing cars at all.

 

[xtry51]

Good shoot. Give them a medal for catching a thief.

Sure IF thry hit a bystander, you can hold them accountable. That's not what happened. They shot a thief. f*** Kenosha.

 

[weekendracer]

IDK what to think,
I know how I feel, blast the little scum bag stealing my shit
BUT taking pop shots at moving car speeding off. Im pretty sure getting charged with something.
It would not sit well with me if I ended up shooting someone else in the process.
Its only a car in the end.
Its just sad that 13yr old girl is stealing cars at all.

I arrested a 15 yr old for murder, they grow up quick.

This is where people need actual 'training'. Once the threat is gone, so is your availability to use force. With a moving vehicle, you also have to take into account what will happen if you hit the driver. Just like bullets going down range, you are responsible for the vehicle. I don't necessarily agree with it, but that's how it is on the LEO side of things. I can't imagine it's different for the civilian world.

 

[Reptile]

I arrested a 15 yr old for murder, they grow up quick.

This is where people need actual 'training'. Once the threat is gone, so is your availability to use force. With a moving vehicle, you also have to take into account what will happen if you hit the driver. Just like bullets going down range, you are responsible for the vehicle. I don't necessarily agree with it, but that's how it is on the LEO side of things. I can't imagine it's different for the civilian world.

Whenever I read these articles I pretend it was me. Hopefully, visualizing the mistake will get me not to do it if I end up in that situation.

I also visualize myself as the bad guy - but I don't think about stealing cars much - so there is little to learn from that angle.

 

[weekendracer]

Whenever I read these articles I pretend it was me. Hopefully, visualizing the mistake will get me not to do it if I end up in that situation.

I also visualize myself as the bad guy - but I don't think about stealing cars much - so there is little to learn from that angle.

I tell people to think about what 'could' happen all the time. The other day 'crazy' broke out in front of me and my BIL at a stop light. As it played out, he finally looked over at me to say 'did you just see that?', he noticed my pistol in my lap, said 'I guess you did'. I didn't think about it, I just reacted as I had game played a similar situation in my head before.

 

[jkelly1229]

So Kenosha sounds like a terrible place to go in the summer

 

[KBCraig]

Police should not shoot at a car driving away, even if they first jump in front of it to claim justification.

Neither should anyone else.

 

[AHM]

I don't see where this rises to the level of "carjacking".
So what's up with the headline?

 

[Reptile]

I don't see where this rises to the level of "carjacking".
So what's up with the headline?

Good point.

More like "car theft".

The 13 year old did not even have a gun.

She is too young to pass a background check.

 

[Zappa]

This sounds a lot like the story I posted Saturday in another Kenosha thread that Reptile started:

As Kenosha and Minneapolis Burn, Millions of Americans Buy Guns

It’s increasingly clear to even the average American that if riots come to your neighborhood, you’re on your own. The message received is increasingly be this: if your plan is to wait until the police show up to provide "protection," be prepared to wait a long time. Consequently, as violence...

www.northeastshooters.com

 

[cathouse01]

Once the threat is gone, so is your availability to use force.

^^^^^^^^^^^This!

 

[dingbat]

I wonder if they are charging the owner of the car with recklessly endangering safety for shooting at the thief or for leaving the car running while unattended out in a public place?

 

[Frizzle Fry]

This is where people need actual 'training'. Once the threat is gone, so is your availability to use force.

As a LEO sure... But this is where a lot of MA (and coastal) people get confused... In many states you can protect your property with deadly force, period. For most of US history this was the case in most locales.

"Once the threat is gone..." no. Literally no in many places. Even in MA well into the 1900s... They still have your horse? You still have your gun.

The force continuum is relevant in some places and careers, but historically, and contemporarily in many states, anyone stealing your car is fair game..in some places it is limited to private property, or your property. Use of force doctrine varies by locale. To the amateur ethicists out there... Is my stuff worth their life? That's a question for the thief, not their victim.

1 slug 1 thug doesn't seem reckless to me. Seems like good marksmanship. Someone lacking the skill to make the shot would be different... 13 is the average age of parenthood in some neighborhoods.

 

[BigAl23]

I arrested a 15 yr old for murder, they grow up quick.

This is where people need actual 'training'. Once the threat is gone, so is your availability to use force. With a moving vehicle, you also have to take into account what will happen if you hit the driver. Just like bullets going down range, you are responsible for the vehicle. I don't necessarily agree with it, but that's how it is on the LEO side of things. I can't imagine it's different for the civilian world.

Great explanation. totally agree

 

[drgrant]

As a LEO sure... But this is where a lot of MA (and coastal) people get confused... In many states you can protect your property with deadly force, period. For most of US history this was the case in most locales.

"Once the threat is gone..." no. Literally no in many places. Even in MA well into the 1900s... They still have your horse? You still have your gun.

The force continuum is relevant in some places and careers, but historically, and contemporarily in many states, anyone stealing your car is fair game..in some places it is limited to private property, or your property. Use of force doctrine varies by locale. To the amateur ethicists out there... Is my stuff worth their life? That's a question for the thief, not their victim.

1 slug 1 thug doesn't seem reckless to me. Seems like good marksmanship. Someone lacking the skill to make the shot would be different... 13 is the average age of parenthood in some neighborhoods.

Lol, Texas is the only one, to the best of my knowledge. And even there, there are lots of limitations. I suspect that any other state that allows it at all is still limited or worse than Texas.

 

[highlander]

Why would anyone with more than 2 brain cells leave a car running unattended at a store,gas station etc. Just asking for trouble BIL had a car stolen that way.

 

[bigbravehog]

"stole the car and was driving away when the owner fired shots at the car, striking the girl,"

nothing I own is worth going to jail for except my family and my own life. Keep it on the holster unless you face imminent life threatening danger.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

Why would anyone with more than 2 brain cells leave a car running unattended at a store,gas station etc. Just asking for trouble BIL had a car stolen that way.

That was my first thought. Not that I have a problem with what the car owner did. He's the victim here. I'm perfectly fine with what he did. The law is not, but my opinion is

 

[xtry51]

^^^^^^^^^^^This!

This is so false I don't even know where to start. If this were true, thieves and assailants would never be arrested once they ran away. Retreating does not magically erase the crime you committed.

 

[xtry51]

"stole the car and was driving away when the owner fired shots at the car, striking the girl,"

nothing I own is worth going to jail for except my family and my own life. Keep it on the holster unless you face imminent life threatening danger.

I support your choice not to shoot. I do not support laws that prevent others from shooting. Your personal morals/experience should not prevent others from protecting their property.

 

[bigbravehog]

I support your choice not to shoot. I do not support laws that prevent others from shooting. Your personal morals/experience should not prevent others from protecting their property.

I completely agree. To each their own. I have insurance for anything that might be stolen or damaged. I might take a loss, but no material possessions are that important to me.

 

[Matt_SERE]

Strange, Andrew just covered being charged like this when using self defense in his weekly youtube Q&A.

Law of Self Defense News/Q&A Show: July 15, 2021 – Law of Self Defense

lawofselfdefense.com

 

[Reptile]

Strange, Andrew just covered being charged like this when using self defense in his weekly youtube Q&A.

Law of Self Defense News/Q&A Show: July 15, 2021 – Law of Self Defense

lawofselfdefense.com

I did not watch this weeks episode but I would bet that Andrew would not agree with shooting in such a situation.

Having taken his classes many times and read his books I also know the law supports his position.

 

[cathouse01]

This is so false I don't even know where to start. If this were true, thieves and assailants would never be arrested once they ran away. Retreating does not magically erase the crime you committed.

All I can say is that in MA, a non LEO who shoots at a fleeing felon will be charged and will most likely at least loose their LTC. If he kills him he will probably be charged with 2nd degree murder. May not be the way you like it, but that is the law.

 

[xtry51]

All I can say is that in MA, a non LEO who shoots at a fleeing felon will be charged and will most likely at least loose their LTC. If he kills him he will probably be charged with 2nd degree murder. May not be the way you like it, but that is the law.

Same person lives in TX, they get a pat on the back.

 

[AHM]

This is so false I don't even know where to start. If this were true, thieves and assailants would never be arrested once they ran away. Retreating does not magically erase the crime you committed.

Q: What Wisconsin (New Hampshire, Mass, ...) law
provides the general public a defense against homicide charges
for the use of lethal force under any circumstance other than self-defense?

 

[Drix]

Good shoot. Give them a medal for catching a thief.

Sure IF thry hit a bystander, you can hold them accountable. That's not what happened. They shot a thief. f*** Kenosha.

1. Girls never going to steal a car again.
2. If they hit a bystander, typically it's the fault of the perp, the only accountability for those actions on the victims side should be between the victim and his moral compass. Shooting a fleeing car is not a amazing decision and not one I would take lightly, but the criminal doesn't have the right to steal your car and in doing so they're assuming the responsibility for the outcome.

 

[gene]

If the thief doesn't die, the guy probably saved their life by showing crime does not pay.
They put very little value on things in our judicial system even when losing personal property through theft may substantially harm the person that was robbed.

 

[xtry51]

Q: What Wisconsin (New Hampshire, Mass, ...) law
provides the general public a defense against homicide charges
for the use of lethal force under any circumstance other than self-defense?

Texas explicitly allows deadly force for the protection of property, even someone else's property. Unfortunately they are the only state. My position is all states should have stronger versions of the TX law. You shouod be able to shoot a thief in the back. Period.

Note for the critical thinking and freedom impaired. I'm not saying I would shoot a child in the back who was stealing from me. I'm saying their shouldn't be a law stopping people from doing so. Because the threat of possible death from your victim is the greatest deterrent to criminals considering breaking the law. Period.