Can't believe CNN actually covered this.

[j_h_smith]

According to my interpretation of Georgia law and what I have read on this web page, it was a good shoot.

http://www.georgiapacking.org/law.php

Forcible Felony - Any felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any person. (16-1-3 as used anywhere in Chapter 16, except 16-11-131)

Defense from a forcible felony; A person is justified in using threats or force to the degree they reasonably believe it is necessary to stop another person's imminent use of unlawful force. A person is justified in using deadly force which may harm or kill only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony (unless it is regarding defense of habitation, which has its own requirements below). You are not justified if you were the aggressor or you are/were/on-the-way-to committing a felony. (The state has pre-empted local cities and counties from further restricting this defense.)(16-3-21)

Defense of property other than habitation; Lethal force cannot be used to protect real property unless the person using such force reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.(16-3-24)

Once the lady jumped on the hood of the car, it became a good shoot.

 

[wrc]

He probably did not mean that.

She did not instigate the theft, however she instigated the shoot. She needlessly and recklessly placed herself in a dangerous, life threatening position. This in turn made someone else react and put himself in a bad spot (by having to shoot someone) and possibly her.
It was a stupid thing to do that could have had BAD consequences for everyone involved.

She started this "fight" with escaping thieves--her decision.

Well, I can only go by what people write.

If there was no news report, I'd think this was an actual textbook problem regarding third party defense of life. Broad daylight, many witnesses (including police), and camera footage -- ambiguity and "reasonable person" issues don't really come into play.

What the woman did was attempt to prevent a felony in progress. This may have been reckless, or stupid, but that's what she was doing. We know *she* knew it was a theft because it was her car being stolen.

The thief did not cease the commission of the crime when confronted by the victim. The thief instead used the vehicle as a weapon. That is why he was charged with aggravated assault.

The third party used appropriate force to defend the woman from the lethal force being used upon her. He knew the situation because he was there. He did not happen on it in-progress.

There's no ambiguity here that I see.

 

[ericahls]

Very interesting debate. I for one do have a carry permit in MD. If I saw a women on a car screaming being driven at high speed I would have taken the shot if my background was clear.

I am not saying I would do this in all situations but after reading the article and listening to the witness reports I would have done it in this situation.

Rack&Roll - If that was your mother, wife, girlfriend, sister, etc on the hood of that car I am confident that you would see things differently.

 

[esqappellate]

Very interesting debate. I for one do have a carry permit in MD. If I saw a women on a car screaming being driven at high speed I would have taken the shot if my background was clear.

I am not saying I would do this in all situations but after reading the article and listening to the witness reports I would have done it in this situation.

Rack&Roll - If that was your mother, wife, girlfriend, sister, etc on the hood of that car I am confident that you would see things differently.

It is an interesting debate. I teach the legal sections of NRA and MD courses on self defense (and I carry too). In the class room, this use of force would probably pass legal muster (especially in GA under the GA statute), as she (stupidly) put herself in the position of risking severe bodily harm by her attempt to defend her property and the prep was engaged in a forcible felony by his use of the car against her. Whether the CCW user employed good judgment is an issue on which reasonable people may differ (and it is hard to determine that just from this video clip). I tell my classes that every CCW permit holder should rehearse in their minds these sorts of scenarios every day.

 

[Rack&Roll]

Very interesting debate. I for one do have a carry permit in MD. If I saw a women on a car screaming being driven at high speed I would have taken the shot if my background was clear.

I am not saying I would do this in all situations but after reading the article and listening to the witness reports I would have done it in this situation.

Rack&Roll - If that was your mother, wife, girlfriend, sister, etc on the hood of that car I am confident that you would see things differently.

This is my point. CCW is an awesome responsibility so we don't deploy it based on emotional attachments to people we love vs. strangers in public.

Lethal force use is supposed to be guided by training and mindset to deploy only after less lethal options have been checked off.

 

[kcbrown]

Lethal force use is supposed to be guided by training and mindset to deploy only after less lethal options have been checked off.

And the CCW holder's less lethal options were ... ?

 

[Rack&Roll]

And the CCW holder's less lethal options were ... ?

If the CCW citizen had time to reach the side of the car for a shot, he also had time to grab the woman by the leg and hold on while the perp drove off.

If the car was moving, as seems to be the case, the CCW citizen was shooting at a MOVING TARGET with the woman's head very near his point of aim. And all this in a place that all witnesses report was crowded with bystanders. In that case he was willing to risk killing her to save her. It was likely with her immense size she would have simply been thrown off and hurt, and the media could cover this as a "lesson" to not risk your life over property.

This was not an open-and-shut good shoot. This debate helps us think ahead to a time when we may be in exactly the same circumstance. If that is the case, then this debate is a plus.

 

[Blaster229]

Shooting a moving vehicle is always a debate. So, he shoots and kills the driver and then the car keeps moving, hits a brick wall, tosses the woman and she in turn gets killed.
Or the moving car goes through a crosswalk and hits a nun pushing a baby stroller (you know what I mean).
Is anyone at fault? Since the shooter fired with "good reason". If he didn't shoot, the woman may have lived or may not. But one thing is for certain that because he did shoot, the car crashed and then she died as a result. This is no different than a bullet missing the threat and going into an innocent bystander.

Shooting a moving vehicle is not such a good thing to do.

 

[wrc]

I don't understand the hand-wringing about what "could have happened", and the assumption that this shooter was acting recklessly.

Here is an equally valid assumption:

The shooter determined he had a clear background, was confident he could hit his target, and believed, based on his first-hand perspective, that the woman would be grievously injured or dead if he did not take the shot.

I feel like I'm cheating, because what actually happened supports this alternate assumption.

 

[HeatSeeker]

Not a good shoot. The car owner was not carjacked--it was taken from her by a teenager when she had her back turned. There was no report of any weapon or threat.

This was a property crime and the car owner compounded the mess when she jumped on the hood and held on while the car thief started to drive away.

The CCW citizen shot into the car at the thief while the woman was just inches away, risking a miss or deflection that could have killed her.

If the CCW citizen had killed an innocent person it would have been a nightmare for CCW.

Disagree. Even if the owner made a bad decision when she jumped on the hood and even if it did not start out as a carjacking, once she was on the hood and the criminal still tried to drive away the car became the weapon and her life was in danger. The car theft turned into assault at that point and it had to be stopped. Not sure I would have opened fire in this situation, but it most likely saved this woman from serious harm or death.

 

[HeatSeeker]

If the CCW citizen had time to reach the side of the car for a shot, he also had time to grab the woman by the leg and hold on while the perp drove off.

If the car was moving, as seems to be the case, the CCW citizen was shooting at a MOVING TARGET with the woman's head very near his point of aim. And all this in a place that all witnesses report was crowded with bystanders. In that case he was willing to risk killing her to save her. It was likely with her immense size she would have simply been thrown off and hurt, and the media could cover this as a "lesson" to not risk your life over property.
This was not an open-and-shut good shoot. This debate helps us think ahead to a time when we may be in exactly the same circumstance. If that is the case, then this debate is a plus.

All you are doing is posting speculation on what could have been done and what probably would have happened to the woman because she was so fat....really? I'll agree not an open and shut good shoot, but this man acted and saved this woman from serious harm or being killed by a crimianal, not to mention from losing her car.

Would you still make all these assumptions if that had been your car and your wife on the hood or would you be praising the guy as a hero?

 

[alucard0822]

Might not have been the best idea, might have been more of a risk than most are willing to accept, but it is almost certainly a lawful shoot.

All started with some flavor of theft, GA interestingly enough may define a vehicle as a "habitation". Either way, she had the lawful right to use force to protect her property, which she did.

16-3-23. Use of force in defense of habitation


A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a habitation; however, such person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:

(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner and he or she reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence;

(2) That force is used against another person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using such force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred; or

(3) The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.

16-3-24. Use of force in defense of property other than a habitation

(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with real property other than a habitation or personal property:
(1) Lawfully in his possession;
(2) Lawfully in the possession of a member of his immediate family; or
(3) Belonging to a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect.
16-3-24.1. Habitation and personal property defined


As used in Code Sections 16-3-23 and 16-3-24, the term "habitation" means any dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and "personal property" means personal property other than a motor vehicle.

At this point the CCwer sees a felony in progress, the theif has responded to the car owner's use of force by committing a forcible felony with the car

he has no duty to retreat, or reason to use "non-lethal force"

16-3-23.1. No duty to retreat prior to use of force in self-defense


A person who uses threats or force in accordance with Code Section 16-3-21, relating to the use of force in defense of self or others, Code Section 16-3-23, relating to the use of force in defense of a habitation, or Code Section 16-3-24, relating to the use of force in defense of property other than a habitation, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use force as provided in said Code sections, including deadly force.

The CCWer is witnessing a forcible felony, he has no duty to retreat, the situation meets the crieteria of "imminent use of unlawful force in defense of the 3rd party". He shoots, he scores. Good shoot by the law, and assuming he hasn't made an aggregious error incriminating himself, it would be exceedingly tough to disprove his lawful use of defense

16-3-21. Use of force in defense of self or others; evidence of belief that force was necessary in murder or manslaughter prosecution


(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to defend himself or herself or a third person against such other's imminent use of unlawful force; however, except as provided in Code Section 16-3-23, a person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

(b) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in subsection (a) of this Code section if he:

(1) Initially provokes the use of force against himself with the intent to use such force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant;

(2) Is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or

(3) Was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement unless he withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to such other person his intent to do so and the other, notwithstanding, continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.

 

[Blaster229]

Just because something didn't turn out bad doesn't mean it was a good idea.

 

[ericahls]

Just because something didn't turn out bad doesn't mean it was a good idea.

True, but in this case I think it was a good idea. Ultimately all of us who carry must make that choice for ourselves.

You have seconds to act so do the best you can and except the consequences.

 

[Bafflingbs]

Let me ask this and let's see if this is the same for the shooter.

You are CCW.
Someone is stealing your car.
You jump on the hood.
You claim your life was in danger, so you shot while holding on.

A person is able to use deadly force in a situation that THEY put themselves in? That won't fly.

Good shoot? Was it a good shoot for the actual shooter if he saw her do it?

No, you cant put yourself in harms way, and then claim life preservation. The bystander, however, can and should have shot. He was protecting an innocent life, during the commission of a felony. It doesn't matter if he saw her jump on the car, or not. The likely hood of her dying or being seriously hurt, had he not shot, was far greater.

 

[Brooklyn]

Just because something didn't turn out bad doesn't mean it was a good idea.

And just because its a bad idea after reflection does not make it unlawful.

The reasonable man standard does not require perfect foresight.

Nor does it require perfect understanding of every other possible outcome..

If it did it would not be a reasonable man standard.

 

[Brooklyn]

No, you cant put yourself in harms way, and then claim life preservation. The bystander, however, can and should have shot. He was protecting an innocent life, during the commission of a felony. It doesn't matter if he saw her jump on the car, or not. The likely hood of her dying or being seriously hurt, had he not shot, was far greater.

Yes you can. What you can't do is act unreasonably..

Nor can you instigate use of lethal force in defense of property...

However in many jurisdictions you are notprevented from using reasonable force to resist.. and if, as a result ,the felon escalates to lethal force you can respond in kind.

Now in MD it is in fact defacto unlawful to resist... since crime is both torerated and ecororaged here...but that's another matter..


Until the street gangs kill enough of the elites this is how it will stay.. MD must be destroyed before it can be rebuilt...so sad.

 

[Brooklyn]

Of relevance I think.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/256/335/case.html

 

[Kinbote]

Racknroll

You seem to be guided simply by emotions. Reacting emotionally-- that's how the lady ended up sprawled on her car, dude.

She had enough "emotion" to try to stop a thief taking her property. Did a good job of it, too. You seem to lack that particular emotion. And you act as if that's a plus in your favor.

It was her right to try to stop FOUR men engaged in property crime, but her safety was not at issue until she moved TOWARD the property thief, not away from him.

And who knows how many in this gang was armed?

Isn't this board all about hammering home the notion of personal responsibility?

Calling them "men" is a bit of a stretch. I didn't realize this board is "all about hammering home the notion of personal responsibility", but if it is, the woman and the shooter are exemplars of responsibility and showed a remarkable willingness to do the right thing.

You noted that the car wash was FULL of bystanders on a busy city street. Cops withhold fire in many circumstances for a reason, and the decision matrix is no different for CCW citizens.

Judging by results, the shooter knew his ability quite well. You can play the "what if" game endlessly, but it cuts both ways. What if the thief had driven his car into the crowd of bystanders? What if these brazen thieves were not stopped? Would their crimes have not just continued, but escalated?

 

[Bafflingbs]

Yes you can. What you can't do is act unreasonably..

Nor can you instigate use of lethal force in defense of property...

However in many jurisdictions you are notprevented from using reasonable force to resist.. and if, as a result ,the felon escalates to lethal force you can respond in kind.

Now in MD it is in fact defacto unlawful to resist... since crime is both torerated and ecororaged here...but that's another matter..


Until the street gangs kill enough of the elites this is how it will stay.. MD must be destroyed before it can be rebuilt...so sad.

The meaning was in point of this discussion. No, you can't jump on your hood, and shoot through the glass because you've put yourself in that particular situation. Is there other situations, not relevant to this particular discussion? Yes, there are.