Man who shot at car thief is sentenced for death of neighbor he hit instead

[Milchshake]

Having a car or tools stolen sucks. But I don't think the loss is worth potentially harming family or neighbors.

It wasn’t just a car a thief was stealing from Tobin Hugh Panton outside his Bonney Lake home the night of Nov. 3. The tools of Panton’s deceased father were in the vehicle. That’s the reason Panton got his .40-caliber Glock and fired at the fleeing bandit, his lawyer said in Pierce County Superior Court Friday.

One of his bullets hit and killed his neighbor, 61-year-old Linda Green, instead.

Judge Timothy Ashcraft settled on a high-end sentence of eight years, six months in prison for Panton — which is what deputy prosecutor Erika Nohavec asked for. He previously pleaded guilty to first-degree manslaughter in Green’s death. Nohavec told the judge that 41-year-old Panton took matters into his own hands instead of calling 911 when he saw someone stealing his Jeep from outside his house in the Prairie Ridge neighborhood.

“He didn’t think about any of his neighbors,” when he fired his gun at the thief, she said.

Some people who were walking their dog ducked when they heard the bullets.

A bullet was found in the living room of another neighbor.

[Kujako]

Ok.... and? Are you for this, against it, etc? What's it got to do with politics?

[Milchshake]

Ok.... and? Are you for this, against it, etc? What's it got to do with politics?

Just struck me, because I cant recall seeing someone get prosecuted for firearm negligence before. With over 3,800 deaths from accidental shootings a year, its impossible to find cases of criminal or civil action. Which is odd. Like there's a protected class of people based upon ownership.

Didnt realize I posted in politics. I guess this is out of the typical Trump or Hillary bashing limits of the sub forum

[Stormdash]

Wasn't negligence he was convicted of. 1st degree manslaughter is usually going to explicitly mean voluntary, i.e. intentional manslaughter. This case is a lesson in th doctrine of transferred intent, or "intent follows the bullet". Since D intended to kill or cause grievous bodily harm to the robber, that intent applies to whomever he actually did shoot, the neighbor. Now, had D had a legitimate affirmative defense of justification, that would have applied even though he hit the wrong person as well, at least as to intentional homicide, but perhaps if his conduct could have been proven reckless or negligent that might have still been criminal; your jurisdictional mileage may vary. He also took a plea, likely to avoid a murder prosecution; can't kill someone for breaking into an unoccupied car.

[GennGreymane]

sounds about right

[xChurch]

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Also, how bad a shot is this guy if he not only failed to hit his target but shot one neighbour and lands a shot in another neighbours living room. Someone that crappy at shooting really shouldn't have any guns.

[Templar 331]

Can't blame the man for shooting at a robber, but shooting in a crowded neighborhood was stupid.

[Kasierith]

Just struck me, because I cant recall seeing someone get prosecuted for firearm negligence before. With over 3,800 deaths from accidental shootings a year, its impossible to find cases of criminal or civil action. Which is odd. Like there's a protected class of people based upon ownership.

Didnt realize I posted in politics. I guess this is out of the typical Trump or Hillary bashing limits of the sub forum

This is not only completely in line with American law, but firearm negligence is held as one of the classics in demonstrating what negligence is in law school. It's tragic, but in the legal world it's basically considered bread and butter.

[zhero]

haven't people who committed murder gotten lighter sentences?

[Independent voter]

I don't think there's a nation in the world that executes thieves so shooting the thief is a problem. Shooting them in the back is another problem. Missing and killing your neighbor is yet another problem.

[Socialhealer]

haven't people who committed murder gotten lighter sentences?

they probably had more money.

richer you are less the law applies to you.

[Sky High]

I'm pretty lacking in the sympathy department for this guy.

[Nilinor]

they probably had more money.

richer you are less the law applies to you.

Remember the rich kid with affluenza that killed 4 people, and got probation, only went to prison later for breaking probation to go to a drinking party. His mother still got far more prison time than him for flying his stupid ass to mexico to flee the police.

-edit-

Here he is!

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.3055905

[kail]

I don't think there's a nation in the world that executes thieves so shooting the thief is a problem. Shooting them in the back is another problem. Missing and killing your neighbor is yet another problem.

Yea, I'd doubt the shooter would escape any prosecution even if he did hit/kill the fleeing thief.

[Wyrt]

Is he from one of those states where it's legal to shoot anyone on your property regardless of if they pose a threat? If not, shooting a thief in the back would probably be illegal on its own, let along killing a neighbor.

[Auxora]

Reading the article it sounds like his manslaughter sentence is probably pretty fair. He shot both into the victim's bedroom as well as hitting another neighbor's house where bullets were found in another person's living room. People can defend themselves, but shooting into 2 different neighbor's houses (killing 1 innocent person) because someone is stealing his car seems incredibly irresponsible. His father's tools being in the car doesn't justify wildly shooting up neighbor's houses going for the thief. He's just lucky he didn't kill more innocent people.

[Nathreim]

He broke one of the most important rules of gun use. Always check the area behind the target. If you see any person or structure behind the target don't fire.

[Ghostpanther]

I think he should have got a harsher sentence. A very stupid and as it shows, dangerous thing to do. 20 years of hard labor is the min he should have got. But of course they do not even do hard labor anymore. :P

[announced]

I think he should have got a harsher sentence. A very stupid and as it shows, dangerous thing to do. 20 years of hard labor is the min he should have got. But of course they do not even do hard labor anymore. :P

you should move to North Korea then if you want to do some hard labor or have it included in prison sentences.

this guy deserves some years for murder, although I wish he hit the thief instead in the back so the robber might end up crippled.

[Ghostpanther]

you should move to North Korea then if you want to do some hard labor or have it included in prison sentences.

this guy deserves some years for murder, although I wish he hit the thief instead in the back so the robber might end up crippled.

Na. I would like to have more justice and punishment in prisons for those who are careless in taking innocent lives. They would deserve it. Silly comparison when they have no freedom in NK. :P We use to have chain gangs. We should bring those back. And also public flogging for some crimes.