quote:

Originally posted by 4859:
Seems a few of you failed to read the full story and watch the video.

He attempted to make a citizens arrest on the man and woman. He attempted to hold them for Police and pulled out his gun when they didn't want to listen to him.

"In a span of a few minutes, Newman says the verbal confrontation escalated. When the male suspect put the vehicle in reverse, Newman drew his weapon, a Sig Sauer 1911 .45 ACP.".

quote:

...and this was not a deadly force encounter.

It was once the vehicle was put in reverse and headed towards him. At least that's the way I see it as a jury member.

quote:

He foolishly placed him self in danger by standing behind the van.

Can't argue that.

quote:

The guy is a fucking idiot.

Or that.

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

[QUOTE]...and this was not a deadly force encounter.

"It was once the vehicle was put in reverse and headed towards him. At least that's the way I see it as a jury member."


You are not a jury member. He had no right to take the law into his own hands. He made it a deadly force encounter. Two wrongs do not make it right for him to shoot at them. The male fled on foot from the van. The female put the van into reverse. Watch the video.

quote:

He had no right to take the law into his own hands

Actually, in many states you as an individual certainly do have that right.

In Montana where this story takes place:

quote:

46-6-502. Arrest by private person.

(1) A private person may arrest another when there is probable cause to believe that the person is committing or has committed an offense and the existing circumstances require the person's immediate arrest. The private person may use reasonable force to detain the arrested person.

(2) A private person making an arrest shall immediately notify the nearest available law enforcement agency or peace officer and give custody of the person arrested to the officer or agency.

Not that I am a fan of what happened in this story, but contrary to what you're often told, you don't have to hide under your table and wait for somebody else to save you.

We should all participate to make society a better place.

46-6-502. Arrest by private person.

(1) A private person may arrest another when there is probable cause to believe that the person is committing or has committed an offense and the existing circumstances require the person's immediate arrest. The private person may use reasonable force to detain the arrested person.



And What PC did he have? He didn't see them steal from the store. Only putting it in the van. No right to make a Citizens Arrest. None.

Reasonable force. Read that part again and think about it.

quote:

Originally posted by 4859:

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

[QUOTE]...and this was not a deadly force encounter.

"It was once the vehicle was put in reverse and headed towards him. At least that's the way I see it as a jury member."


You are not a jury member. He had no right to take the law into his own hands. He made it a deadly force encounter. Two wrongs do not make it right for him to shoot at them. The male fled on foot from the van. The female put the van into reverse. Watch the video.

I did watch the video and I saw the female back the van into him. If I were a jury member, I would think that she turned it into a deadly force encounter and he had every right to defend himself, which is why I think he'll walk with a good attorney (although his claim of shooting at the tires might trip him up).

Now, would I have done the same or advise anyone else to do the same? Hell no. Do I think he was a dumb ass for putting himself in that position? Yep.

But, from what the video shows, she tried to run him down and he defended himself.

quote:

And What PC did he have? He didn't see them steal from the store. Only putting it in the van. No right to make a Citizens Arrest. None.

Probable cause is the same level required of a police officer to make an arrest. And just like the officer does not need to witness the actual crime, neither does this guy.

Now that he's attempted his arrest, the bad guys commit even more crime, I would argue violently trying to escape.

Again, I don't think the guy should be shooting at tires, but legally, I think he was OK to make the arrest.

quote:

Reasonable force. Read that part again and think about it.

I have thought about it, and commented on it several times on this very forum. I believe police officers shooting at cars is dumb, just like I believe regular Joes shooting at cars is dumb.

I believe those fractions of a second are better spent removing yourself from danger than trying to use a bullet to stop a 3,000 pound machine.

That said, it happens all the time. Police shoot at cars. Police even sometimes kill people trying to escape in cars. Ultimately, if you don't want to get shot, you shouldn't be trying to run somebody over.

quote:

Originally posted by tatortodd:
I realize this didn't hapen in Texas, and I definitely do not want to test it in a Texas grand jury. However, Texas does have deadly force provisions in which you can shoot a fleeing suspect.

quote:

Penal Code Chapter 9 Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

texas is the only state where personal property can be protected by lethal force. I always assumed that it's because of cattle.

There is quite a leap from reasonable force to deadly force. Shooter McGavin here wasn't shooting the driver when they threw it into reverse; doesn't seem like he thought his life was in danger. Instead, he shot at the tires of the van as it was trying to drive away, through the opposing car and parking sign.

We don't know when he pulled the gun, because he is on the other side of the van.
For the first three shots, the camera is pointed at the ground.
For the fourth shot, we can see he stance and his aim seems to be for the tires.
For shots five and six, he is no longer in danger; the van is speeding off.

We don't know how effective his aim was.

Now, I don't know if his actions could be considered reasonable.

So, his training allowed him to accurately assess the surroundings and safely fire. It also appears he missed and at least one bullet hit the pile of snow.

I like the part of the video where he calls ricochet a stretch. Someone needs to ask him where bullets land when they miss.

Fucking idiot.

quote:

But, from what the video shows, she tried to run him down and he defended himself.

It wasn't actually an act of self defense. it was a reaction after the fact as she was in the process of driving off. totally unnecessary

quote:

Originally posted by domcintosh:
There is quite a leap from reasonable force to deadly force. Shooter McGavin here wasn't shooting the driver when they threw it into reverse; doesn't seem like he thought his life was in danger. Instead, he shot at the tires of the van as it was trying to drive away, through the opposing car and parking sign.

We don't know when he pulled the gun, because he is on the other side of the van.
For the first three shots, the camera is pointed at the ground.
For the fourth shot, we can see he stance and his aim seems to be for the tires.
For shots five and six, he is no longer in danger; the van is speeding off.

We don't know how effective his aim was.

Now, I don't know if his actions could be considered reasonable.

Not being a man educated on the law, I'd agree with this.

He wasn't protecting himself, if so he would have gone for a head shot. He was trying to be a hero/cowboy and take the law into his own hands.

Best thing he could have or should have done was take down the license plate and a good description of the suspects. If it wasn't a stolen car, the cops could have just showed up at the people's house and arrested them, no gunfire involved.

Instead he tried to protect someone else's property which he has no relation or obligation to protect. He was not hired by, family, or partner in this business.

Jack ass, there is no defense here of him being in fear for his life of her running him over, he put himself in the situation. Being an excellent witness would have been the best thing.

I'm glad the imbecile's bullets didn't hit any innocent people in that busy parking lot or the buildings surrounding it.

The jackass was probably shoot my jackass cousin.

He probably should have stayed away from the news until he found out he was in the clear.

"At no point was anybody in danger"

That line is probably going to fry him. Then again, he doesn't look like the brightest bulb on the tree.

quote:

Originally posted by 4859:
...... The guy is a fucking idiot.

I'll simplify it for the readership.

-------------------------

quote:

Originally posted by Gustofer:

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:
All fine and dandy until it's somebody YOU care about getting shot and killed for stealing a pair of jeans. Or getting shot because somebody THINKS they stole a pair of jeans. Not all 'suspects' are truly guilty of what they are accused of.

Except that I don't gather that he shot for the shoplifting. As I see it, he shot because she tried to run him over.

Yes, it started as shoplifting, and if he'd have left well enough alone it likely would have stayed there. However, it escalated and he did what he thought was right. Who here wouldn't shoot if someone tried to run you over?

But he CAUSED the situation whereby he was nearly run over. One could argue that the people in the car were 'in fear for their lives' and acting in self-defense. Think about it - some crazy guy yelling about 'citizens arrest,' acting VERY hostile, threatening to detain them. In a similar situation, I probably would have tried to leave the scene, too, whether the jackwad was trying to block me in with his body or not. Now, consider that the dude ran off and a woman was left in the van, with a crazy guy screaming at her. She could VERY reasonably argue that she felt her life was in danger and running him over would have been justified.

I would NOT want to see myself go to trial over that one - using deadly force in a situation that I would have caused.

quote:

And just like the officer does not need to witness the actual crime, neither does this guy.

Actually, in many cases, they do. Citing NJ law, there are very few exceptions when charges can be filed for disorderly persons offenses not witnessed by the complainant.

As Andrew Branca’s seminars and book starts out with, avoiding these interactions will save the shooter about 35K just to start. Putting yourself in harm's way and then using it as an excuse is foolish at best.

Exactly what did he think shooting at the tires would accomplish?

quote:

Originally posted by OMCHamlin:

quote:

Originally posted by Hound Dog:

quote:

Originally posted by OMCHamlin:
This will certainly sound crass, but if more "shoplifters" thought they might get their asses shot up in the process, maybe they would think twice?
On the other hand, if we lost a few shoplifters along the way, in case you hadn't noticed, the world is FULL of people, we're in no danger of running out...

All fine and dandy until it's somebody YOU care about getting shot and killed for stealing a pair of jeans.

Retard.

I generally try and not associate with thieves, you should find better friends to hang out with (or care about, whatever...)

So, innocent people are never falsely accused of anything?

People can't make mistakes, thinking your totally innocent loved one(s) are committing a crime?

I don't associate with criminals, either, but say, your mother or wife is leaving a store, and some idiot wrongly accuses her of stealing an item. Some idiot intervenes and starts yelling about detaining them, thinking he can use deadly force to stop a crime (or purposefully escalates the situation to that point). . .

THAT is the problem that 'good Samaritans' can face - intervening in situations where they do NOT know all the facts. Of course, this applies to LEOs, as well, but they have training and legal authority that we do NOT.

These idiots who use deadly force like this are dangerous. They aren't mentally stable, IMO.

In Texas, that may be permitted. You can, in some circumstances, use deadly force to prevent the theft of even someone else's property. Texas Penal Code 9.41 - 9.42.

It may not always be smart, but it can be legal.

quote:

Actually, in many cases, they do. Citing NJ law, there are very few exceptions when charges can be filed for disorderly persons offenses not witnessed by the complainant.

Not in this case.

I was being specific to this incident in the state of Montana. Your laws may vary. Missouri, where I'm at, also would require that "good guy" had actual knowledge of the crime.

The ability for a citizen to make an arrest is the law in the majority (if not all) of the states. May not be advisable in some cases, and many obviously don't understand how it works, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a legal option.