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

[Anuibus]

He should definitely be punished for that grave error, but I don't think he deserves a death penalty over it. This was involuntary manslaughter, as in, it was his negligence that caused someone to die. It's not like it was first or second degree murder.

title was a bit hard to read, but he was sentenced FOR the death, not sentenced to death. His sentence was 8 and a half years.

[melodramocracy]

Its a shame that he missed.

[Deleted]

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

Ehh, i'm super conflicted about this.

On one hand, I get it, your stuff is your stuff and you should be able to protect it.

On the other, it's just stuff. Is it really worth killing someone over? That's why we have insurance and police. If you're defending yourself or another person i'd agree that it's totally justified, but defending stuff just doesn't seem worth killing someone over, even if they're a thief.

We don't sentence robbers to death because the punishment has to be relative to the crime, so I just can't justify someone taking the law into their own hands to kill someone for taking stuff, particularly in cases like this when it clearly went very wrong and an innocent person got killed.

[Afrospinach]

That's why we have insurance and police.

If you read the article, the tools the guy was stealing belonged to the dudes late father. It is like saying insurance will replace all your photographs.

[Deleted]

If you read the article, the tools the guy was stealing belonged to the dudes late father. It is like saying insurance will replace all your photographs.

I did, and that sucks, but it's still just stuff. His sentimentality over those tools doesn't entitle him to kill this guy, particularly since he's apparently a really shitty shot.

I'm not saying the thief was in any way in the right. He deserves the maximum punishment that is available within the law, but this is why we HAVE the law. You can't just take it into your own hands.

[Templar 331]

Where the hell else are you going to have an opportunity to shoot at "robbers"? It's going to be in the vicinity of your home (as in this case) or out in public.

Not everyone lives in a crowded neighborhood. There's this place called "the country" that people live in where a person can be miles away from another.

How about people don't shoot at criminals like this is a game of cops and robbers and let the police do their job?

I'm going to tell you a little story about a crime spree that happened here a few months back that impacted a few coworkers of mine.

Four delinquents decided to go on a major crime spree in at least two neighborhoods. One down Albany Ave. and one around the High school. In the middle of the night they broke into dozens of vehicles and stole from them. Several of these items were guns. Two of my coworkers had their vehicles stolen and the second one was involved in a high speed chase. To my knowledge none of the four criminals were caught.

Now I'm not bashing the local police since they did all they could do, but when you are staring down a criminal about to commit a crime you should be able to use what force is necessary to stop him if it doesn't endanger others.

Ehh, i'm super conflicted about this.

On one hand, I get it, your stuff is your stuff and you should be able to protect it.

On the other, it's just stuff. Is it really worth killing someone over? That's why we have insurance and police. If you're defending yourself or another person i'd agree that it's totally justified, but defending stuff just doesn't seem worth killing someone over, even if they're a thief.

We don't sentence robbers to death because the punishment has to be relative to the crime, so I just can't justify someone taking the law into their own hands to kill someone for taking stuff, particularly in cases like this when it clearly went very wrong and an innocent person got killed.

I agree that the punishment should fit the crime and that vigilante justice is wrong, but when you are in a situation that you have no idea what the outcome is you should at least be able to defend yourself and your property. This guy did it poorly since he endangered others and killed one person.

As for the "it's just stuff", it really is but it's still a person's stuff and no one should steal it. 99% of my stuff I could replace without a care but I will fight for it if someone decides to take it from me.

[Themius]

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.

People can defend themselves but the problem is when they're fleeing you're no longer defending.

[ParanoiD84]

Shame he missed indeed.

[Machismo]

Good, the guy deserves to be in prison. I have zero sympathy for the idiotic asshat, and I'm glad to see that he is being held accountable for his actions.

[ArguesWithStrangers]

I'm a stauch 2nd Amendment supporter, but that does not mean you cannot suffer consequences for what you do with your firearms. You can be held liable for results of your actions whether those results were intended or not. That holds true whether you're driving a care or firing a weapon. Any basic marksmanship course stresses looking past your target to know what is behind it for this very reason. He was being reckless, and I agree with the result.

[Octa]

Shouldnt be shooting unless someone's life is in danger.

As someone pointed out earlier his truck was in danger of being wrecked and his tools stolen. We don't have systems in place for that kind of stuff so the best course of action is to murder someone.

/s

[unbound]

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.

As for firearm negligence, the firearms industry (via NRA) has pushed for dismantling of many legal safeguards, so many states are very hesitant to charge people with negligence. As such, they will typically only prosecute for criminal negligence which has a much higher bar that needs to be cleared.

Worthwhile read if you are interested - https://newrepublic.com/article/1216...gligence-crime

[Paetolus]

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.

Maybe he's a really good shot and paid someone to "steal" his car, to commit an "accidental" murder.

[Lochton]

Fair sentence, really.

[Aleksej89]

Insufficiently trained (and possibly mentally unbalanced and/or drunk) civilians freely using firearms to dish out justice as they see fit in the heat of the moment.

Nothing wrong to see there folks, just move along to your homes where your neighbor might snipe yo ass, accidentally..

[Kujako]

Just because this is the offtopic forum doesnt mean every single post has to have to do with murican poleteks.

It WAS in the politics sub-forum, it has since been moved.

[Elba]

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

Why would you shoot at a robber that is fleeing and not a danger to you?

[triplesdsu]

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

Are you aware that like 95+% of arrests and prosecutions don't make the news right? People get arrested and prosecuted all the time, though it isnt really that newsworthy. Also, if you hit someone, odds are you would get the more serious crime of assault with a deadly weapon instead.

[kasuke06]

... No. The left is the group advocating for smarter gun control policies. The right is the group that starts screaming bloody murder whenever it is suggested that people should be taught that a gun isn't a damn toy.

Are you seriously that stupid? The right wants people to have guns and know about them. The left wants to use gun ownership as a scary boogeyman to get people to throw their rights away.

[Poopymonster]

If only we had a good guy with a gun...