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

[AwkwardSquirtle]

But I thought a good guy with a gun stopped all crime in America? Would it have gone better if he had 2 guns?

[Deleted]

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.

Haha, the title is misleading because of poor grammar, he is sentenced for the death of his neighbor not sentenced to death.
OT: Of course he's sentenced, wouldn't expect anything else. A person died because of his stupidity. That's what happens when it's ok for random people to have guns.

[the game]

So he did something stupid and got punished for it. What's there to discuss?

[dokilar]

irresponsible gun owner. i own lots of guns, shoot lots of guns but i'm not sure i would shoot at someone stealing my car. as much as i love it, it can be replaced, the human life cannot. now if the thief had a knife and was coming at me to take my car thats a different story but if i happen to just look our my window and see my car driving down the street i doubt i'm gonna have the urge to shoot at it

[kasuke06]

I have seen very few politicians say we need to ban all guns. They just want reasonable restrictions on ownership. Like preventing the mentally ill from buying them.

On the other hand. For some reason the right thinks every person, no matter how crazy, should be allowed to own a gun. Which leads to crazy fucks shooting up schools and movie theaters.

ignoring of course the fact that more people commit suicide with guns than any spree shooter's body count, every fucking year.

One thing the left doesn't want to admit, owning a gun means you're more likely to put a bullet through your own head intentionally rather than a bystander by accident. when it's the single best argument for control.

[BuckSparkles]

Whoops, talk about rolling a 1 on the dice roll.

[kasuke06]

Being suicidal is typically considered being mentally ill... thanks for your support though.

I'm not against gun control as a concept. Some people should, in fact, not be allowed to have guns. but this obsession with creating a sense of false safety through "gun free" zones and the like is dumb as hell, you think a spree shooter sees that sign and goes "oh dang, I have a gun and am not allowed to be here, better pack up and go home."? No, they see "Huh, no one here will be capable of stopping me without having to rush me, and I have gun(s) so that's an eventuality that I have an advantage in!"

Proper gun safety should be a required course in schools, simply because in america, you will encounter a gun at some point in your life. not as a what if, but when. and of course, better suicide prevention programs.

[Antiganon]

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.

It's too bad those basic marksmanship courses aren't universally required for gun ownership.

[Templar 331]

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

To stop him.

[Saverem]

He discharged his firearm with the express intention of gravely harming or killing another human being, and another human being was killed. His express predetermined and deliberate action fulfilled its purpose. This is how common law views this situation, and how the case carried forward.

If he had a good lawyer, he could establish that the premeditation was directed towards the thief who was stealing his car. And get him to plea guilty or no contest to involuntary manslaughter and unauthorized discharge of a firearm. Both of these wouldn't warrant a death penalty.


Edit: Eitherway, just found out that he DIDN'T get the death penalty, the title just has poor grammar and I misread it. I was about to say, this dude had THE WORST lawyer on the planet if he had gotten the death penalty from that. Apparently he got 8 years, which means he'll probably get out in 3 or so and serve the next 5 on probation.

[Xar226]

8.5 years might be a touch on the high end for what happened, but overall it seems reasonable to me.

Moreover, I hope that people would support this penalty (or a similar one) regardless of their position on gun control. If you are opposed to gun ownership, well, the logic here writes itself. If you support it, requiring people to handle and use their firearms responsibly is core to any argument for them. Killing one neighbor and putting a bullet into another neighbor's living room doesn't qualify as responsible.

[Saverem]

Haha, the title is misleading because of poor grammar, he is sentenced for the death of his neighbor not sentenced to death.
OT: Of course he's sentenced, wouldn't expect anything else. A person died because of his stupidity. That's what happens when it's ok for random people to have guns.

OK, this makes much more sense.

[Queen of Hamsters]

He was going to potentially take the life of the robber over physical goods.
He ended up taking the life of an innocent, endangering yet more innocent people in the process.

I have zero sympathies.

[Citizen T]

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

Your number of 3800 per year is off by a lot. Almost 3800 accidental shooting deaths occurred from 2005 thru 2010 or about 630 per year. Most of these are due to accidental discharge, not intentional discharge in a negligent manner which is why you seldom see prosecutions.

I'll even link statistics from a more gun control leaning site:
http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-a...es-statistics/

[Morgaith]

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

./thread 10 chars

[kail]

To stop him.

To potentially kill him because he's taking your stuff, and still serve prosecution since the thief wasn't a threat. Not the smartest way to play the game of Life.

[Deleted]

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

Why would you shoot to kill? It's just property

- - - Updated - - -

letting the police do their job the car can be wrecked, scrapped, and the tools never seen again, but hey, maybe they might recover what is left of his truck...

It's called insurance

[Citizen T]

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.

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

Some people have homes where discharging a firearm is very unlikely to reach a neighbor.

[minteK917]

Even if he only killed the robber hed face similar charges. Killing an escaping thief is not legal even in Texas or Florida. There is no death penalty for stealing either, so theres no logical reason civilians would be allowed to execute one. Only self defense permit you to kill someone.

[Citizen T]

God, it never ceases to amaze me how backwards America is at times. For a first-world country at any rate. Get some damn proper firearms training for crying out loud. Clamp down on this ridiculous flexibility of firearm use. If you're not going to see sense and start phasing the blasted things out, at least make sure people have to be trained to use the silly things. Just how many times must you lot burn your hands before you learn to keep it out of the flames?

It's one of the most important damn rules. You confirm your target. You don't shoot first and ask questions later. This isn't a video game or movie!

His 3800 per year number is ridiculously incorrect. That number is a six year total from 2005-2010. While any accidental death is a tragedy, it is less than 2% of the number of people that die from accidental poisoning every year.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm

- - - Updated - - -

This year Trump reversed regulations on the mentally ill buying guns.

The ideological obsession with guns is beyond reckless. That's the real problem.

- - - Updated - - -



And did firing his gun at this guy stop him?

Sure stopped his neighbour.

He did not such thing. He removed Obama's restriction of allowing people that receive SSDI that use a designated payee from owning firearms. Anyone adjudicated as mentally incompetent cannot own a firearm. The Social Security Administration is not an appropriate agency to deem someone as mentally incompetent.

- - - Updated - - -

I have seen very few politicians say we need to ban all guns. They just want reasonable restrictions on ownership. Like preventing the mentally ill from buying them.

On the other hand. For some reason the right thinks every person, no matter how crazy, should be allowed to own a gun. Which leads to crazy fucks shooting up schools and movie theaters.

The right wants no such thing. There is already a law forbidding anyone adjudicated as mentally incompetent from owning a firearm. What more do you want?

- - - Updated - - -

It's too bad those basic marksmanship courses aren't universally required for gun ownership.

Are there basic journalistic courses required for the press?
Are there basic assembly courses required to conduct protests?
Are there basic courses required to exercise free speech?
Are there basic courses required for exercising your Fifth Amendment rights?

I'm not saying that firearms ownership has no responsibility. Every right comes with responsibilities. Abusing them has consequences.

- - - Updated - - -

Again, nobody is looking for all guns to be banned. I know many people who have never handled a gun in their life. Two of them are nonagenarians.

Have they never seen a gun in their life? Pretty much everyone is exposed to firearms at some point in their lives. Teaching everyone basic firearms safety is something that would take perhaps an hour total during a school year. Done every year this could easily prevent accidental deaths for children for a extremely small investment of time.

- - - Updated - - -

8.5 years might be a touch on the high end for what happened, but overall it seems reasonable to me.

Moreover, I hope that people would support this penalty (or a similar one) regardless of their position on gun control. If you are opposed to gun ownership, well, the logic here writes itself. If you support it, requiring people to handle and use their firearms responsibly is core to any argument for them. Killing one neighbor and putting a bullet into another neighbor's living room doesn't qualify as responsible.

I agree with this. Compared to lighter sentences having been given to those convicted of First Degree Murder, 8.5 years is a bit high in my opinion.

All rights come with responsibility. Abusing them in ways that endanger others should have consequences.