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

[dcmdon]

I know I'll catch crap for this, but he deserves to be charged. He endangered the general public while shooting at the criminal when she represented no threat to him or anyone around them. Sure I'd want to do it. I think any human would want to do that.

But that's not the ethically sound thing to do.

Now if this happened on the side of the road in an uninhabited area, fine. But generally. No.

 

[Dadstoys]

As very , very tempting as it would be to shoot , I think i would take a pass unless it was some desert rest stop and I could be fairly certain no one is going to catch a stray round.
Not going to shed a tear for the thief though.
There were two 13 year old's that killed a woman pushing a baby carriage stone dead because she wouldn't give them a cigarette , then posted a video on social media waving the murder weapon around and laughing about "Capping that bitch".
When they grow up feral ,age is just a number.

 

[AHM]

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.

Inneresting.
But not all crimes qualify as predicate offenses for the Felony Murder Rule.

As very , very tempting as it would be to shoot , I think i would take a pass unless it was some desert rest stop and I could be fairly certain no one is going to catch a stray round.

Should the shooter's lawyer claim that he was aiming at the car's tires,
but missed?

 

[xtry51]

These discussions are exactly why malum prohibitum laws are stupid. It's all opinion based nonsense.

The shooter hit the thief the shooter got their property back. The only court cases should be the car theft criminal complaint and then a civil case by the shooter to force the thief to pay for the bullet damages to the car.

This hyperbole about what ifs is tiresome. Clearly the public was not in danger of the shooter since the public suffered no harm. The proposals here are nothing short of defending criminality because of something that did not happen, but exists only in your overimaginative minds where your feelings are more important than physical realities. You people are why court systems bloat and corrupt.

 

[weekendracer]

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.

I disagree. You are talking the past, at least since Tenn vs Garner, I'm not looking up the case I could be misciting the case. Your explanation is what leads people into this type of mess. Name ONE state where it's legal to shoot someone in the act of leaving the scene where force is no longer being applied. "Maybe" Texas, but they still have to be on your property (or at least the victim's property) but even then you're looking at some legal fees.

While a great meme, if you are looking to bankrupt yourself, your legal analysis is terrible.

 

[drgrant]

I disagree. You are talking the past, at least since Tenn vs Garner, I'm not looking up the case I could be misciting the case. Your explanation is what leads people into this type of mess. Name ONE state where it's legal to shoot someone in the act of leaving the scene where force is no longer being applied. "Maybe" Texas, but they still have to be on your property (or at least the victim's property) but even then you're looking at some legal fees.

While a great meme, if you are looking to bankrupt yourself, your legal analysis is terrible.

MSP has had at least one guy walk standing in front of the car and shooting the guy trying to get away- if you can make it look like the perp was trying to run you over or didn't give a shit, it doesn't matter. At least for some LE.

 

[weekendracer]

MSP has had at least one guy walk standing in front of the car and shooting the guy trying to get away- if you can make it look like the perp was trying to run you over or didn't give a shit, it doesn't matter. At least for some LE.

That is a set up situation. Put a normal person in that position and see how it goes for them. You can nitpick very odd situations, those aren't the norm and don't prove the point. Even in LEO circles, that situation doesn't happen very often.

 

[AHM]

That is a set up situation. Put a normal person in that position and see how it goes for them. You can nitpick very odd situations, those aren't the norm and don't prove the point. Even in LEO circles, that situation doesn't happen very often.

And as there are more and more webcams everywhere,
it gets harder and harder to pull off that nonsense.

 

[Frizzle Fry]

I disagree. You are talking the past, at least since Tenn vs Garner, I'm not looking up the case I could be misciting the case. Your explanation is what leads people into this type of mess. Name ONE state where it's legal to shoot someone in the act of leaving the scene where force is no longer being applied. "Maybe" Texas, but they still have to be on your property (or at least the victim's property) but even then you're looking at some legal fees.

While a great meme, if you are looking to bankrupt yourself, your legal analysis is terrible.

Neat move there, with your framing in the response. You should consider a career in the media! Almost everything you just said is what I said in the original post, RE: talking about the past, being on ones own property, continued force being applied, etc. And nothing about legal fees. I'd point to you Texas, Montana, Washington state for the more "extreme" (aka traditional American) laws about protecting ones property with deadly force, including a car you own being stolen on your property - there are others. I'm not leading anyone into any type of mess, thanks.

My commentary on the use of force continuum is a general commentary on the use of force continuum, not just regarding auto theft. People in coastal states (and many on this website) love to get into these messy coastal arguments about what the next step in escalation might be, in terms of legal protection for the type of force used, when they're talking about incidents involving free people in the actual United States. My point - in general - is that in much of this county, especially on your own property, the force leap from empty hand to firearm is not the issue that it is in blue states. Proportional force is less of, or simply not an issue. Nor should it be. It's not "honorable" or "ethical" to suggest that a person defending themselves should be hamstrung in their choice of means of doing so, on the basis that a closed fist or shod foot, or knife for that matter happens to be the weapon of their attacker..

Thankfully many states recognize this. Almost all of them used to. Doesn't mean you won't be jammed up by the wrong DA.

"He had a stun gun, and all I had was a handgun, so I was stuck defending myself with a bare fist" sounds like words to St. Peter at the golden gate, or around a feeding tube in the ER.

In a blue state, a closed fist is a deadly weapon when the victim dies or is hospitalized, but it makes for an "unarmed" assailant when the victim shoots back and avoids those outcomes. What a ridiculous double standard for the victim of an attempted or partially successful assault. How many teeth or intact skull bits does one need to sacrifice to the aggressor/assailant before they are justified in defending themselves with whatever they have at hand? Far less of an issue in central and southern states than it is in almost all of the northeast, or to a LEO who's bound to a higher standard, including the use of force continuum and the strictures of Tenn. V Garner.

 

[weekendracer]

Neat move there, with your framing in the response. You should consider a career in the media! Almost everything you just said is what I said in the original post, RE: talking about the past, being on ones own property, continued force being applied, etc. And nothing about legal fees. I'd point to you Texas, Montana, Washington state for the more "extreme" (aka traditional American) laws about protecting ones property with deadly force, including a car you own being stolen on your property - there are others. I'm not leading anyone into any type of mess, thanks.

My commentary on the use of force continuum is a general commentary on the use of force continuum, not just regarding auto theft. People in coastal states (and many on this website) love to get into these messy coastal arguments about what the next step in escalation might be, in terms of legal protection for the type of force used, when they're talking about incidents involving free people in the actual United States. My point - in general - is that in much of this county, especially on your own property, the force leap from empty hand to firearm is not the issue that it is in blue states. Proportional force is less of, or simply not an issue. Nor should it be. It's not "honorable" or "ethical" to suggest that a person defending themselves should be hamstrung in their choice of means of doing so, on the basis that a closed fist or shod foot, or knife for that matter happens to be the weapon of their attacker..

Thankfully many states recognize this. Almost all of them used to. Doesn't mean you won't be jammed up by the wrong DA.

"He had a stun gun, and all I had was a handgun, so I was stuck defending myself with a bare fist" sounds like words to St. Peter at the golden gate, or around a feeding tube in the ER.

In a blue state, a closed fist is a deadly weapon when the victim dies or is hospitalized, but it makes for an "unarmed" assailant when the victim shoots back and avoids those outcomes. What a ridiculous double standard for the victim of an attempted or partially successful assault. How many teeth or intact skull bits does one need to sacrifice to the aggressor/assailant before they are justified in defending themselves with whatever they have at hand? Far less of an issue in central and southern states than it is in almost all of the northeast, or to a LEO who's bound to a higher standard, including the use of force continuum and the strictures of Tenn. V Garner.

No. You brought up a couple vague instances and said 'one shot, one thug'. Great legal advice.

One of us has extensive experience dealing with force and it's legal application. Your advice, I'd pass on. I'll admit, I don't have a whole lot of dealings with 'civilian' use of force, but the standard is generally the same. Using any force has more to deal with the articulation of said force than the force applied.

 

[Frizzle Fry]

No. You brought up a couple vague instances and said 'one shot, one thug'. Great legal advice.

One of us has extensive experience dealing with force and it's legal application. Your advice, I'd pass on. I'll admit, I don't have a whole lot of dealings with 'civilian' use of force, but the standard is generally the same.

Using any force has more to deal with the articulation of said force than the force applied.

That was an aside comment, not legal advice, mostly concerning the charges the victim is actually facing (endangering the public, somehow). Not any kind of advice. Are you a lawyer? I'm not. Nor am I purporting to be.

Both of us have plenty of experience with dealing with force and its legal application... but you seem to only have as a LEO. Not in the military, as a PMC, as a firearms instructor, and a security specialist as well. I've trained LEOs, for what that's worth, and am still certified by NYC to do so. If it's a struggle to parse out what's legal advice (nothing), versus simply contesting your incorrect statements about rules surrounding use of force in various states, or simply an aside, I'm sorry for that.

When it comes to civilian use of force, in most states the standard is NOT the same as a LEO, but lower. Civilians typically don't get held to the same standards as LEOs, and that makes sense as they aren't issued a 15lb belt of tools so they can respond evenly with every level of force they might encounter. There is no thin blue line for civilians, or qualified immunity, or union backing, but there aren't nearly as many hard rules and policies regarding escalation of force and the continuum. In coastal/ blue states, self help is discouraged, and civilians have it pretty rough. That's simply not true of much of the rest of free America, to one degree or another.

Again, thanks for the weasel worded framing. Again.

 

[Blackmore]

In this case, if he could not honestly say he was in fear for his life, he lost his primary defense and any justification for shooting.

 

[weekendracer]

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.

Let's go back to your original statement that I replied to.

Now that you've given a bit of your resume, I guess it makes sense.