• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Man arrested for shooting person who tried to steal the man's car

cullennz said:
This will probably sound very ignorant hick dude from NZ, but do AR 15s not have a safety?
Click to expand...

They do. The AR-15 has very ergonomic controls. The safety can be felt with the thumb of the firing hand (assuming right handed) quite easily without changing grip.

I don't buy the "accidental discharge" line one bit. Best case scenario is that our killer was extremely negligent by pointing a loaded rifle with safety off at a person and unintentionally pulled the trigger. If i were a juror, I don't think I'd put much effort into parsing extreme negligence from deliberate action in such a situation.

The article mentions two additional shots at the rear of the vehicle. The accidental discharge explanation beggars belief.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
They do. The AR-15 has very ergonomic controls. The safety can be felt with the thumb of the firing hand (assuming right handed) quite easily without changing grip.

I don't buy the "accidental discharge" line one bit. Best case scenario is that our killer was extremely negligent by pointing a loaded rifle with safety off at a person and unintentionally pulled the trigger. If i were a juror, I don't think I'd put much effort into parsing extreme negligence from deliberate action in such a situation.

The article mentions two additional shots at the rear of the vehicle. The accidental discharge explanation beggars belief.
Click to expand...


Cheers

Dude is an idiot then

Lock him up for some years and try to teach him common sense/decency/value of inanimate objects compared to human life
 
crescent said:
This may contribute to the debate over the use guns by civilians in response to crimes. On social media I have already noticed facts getting mangled in discussions of this particular incident.

Affidavit: Man arrested for murder after confronting car theft suspects with AR-15, firing at their vehicle



In particular, I keep seeing people saying that Fitch fired at the people to try to stop them from stealing his car. This is not true - he saw them in his car, but by the time he got his gun, the thieves were in their own car, not his. It seems likely that Fitch's legal defense will push the idea that the first shot may have been accidental and the next two because he thought they were going to run him over.
Click to expand...

As a general rule, civilians ought not to fire into a moving vehicle (outside of being fired on by the vehicle occupants) due to the potential of greater harm to uninvolved parties if the vehicle driver is seriously injured or killed.

There are many LEA's that have a narrow use-of-force policy on firing into a moving vehicle for that very reason.

My .02 based on the facts as reported is that this isn't a good shoot, but I've been wrong before - primarily this incident:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy

The Joe Horn shooting controversy occurred on November 14, 2007, in Pasadena, Texas, United States, when local resident Joe Horn shot and killed two burglars outside his neighbor's home. Recordings of Horn's exchange with emergency dispatch indicated that he was asked repeatedly not to interfere with the burglary, because police would soon be on scene.[1] The shootings resulted in debates regarding self-defense, Castle Doctrine laws, and Texas laws relating to use of deadly force to prevent or stop property crimes. The illegal alien status of both burglars was highlighted because of the U.S. border controversy.[2] On June 30, 2008, Joe Horn was cleared by a grand jury in the Pasadena shootings.

I would've bet money on an indictment. I was wrong.
 
Trebuchet said:
Unfortunately, cops use that defense all the damn time.
Click to expand...

Pretty much every concealed carry class for ordinary citizens could start with the sentence "You aren't a cop, your decision to kill someone will be scrutinized for lawfulness".
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Pretty much every concealed carry class for ordinary citizens could start with the sentence "You aren't a cop, your decision to kill someone will be scrutinized for lawfulness".
Click to expand...
To be fair, a cop's decision to kill someone should also be scrutinised for lawfulness. It's just that there are (or should be) more circumstances where it is lawful for a cop to kill someone than for a civilian.
 
arthwollipot said:
To be fair, a cop's decision to kill someone should also be scrutinised for lawfulness. It's just that there are (or should be) more circumstances where it is lawful for a cop to kill someone than for a civilian.
Click to expand...

So what should those be? If a civilian can only kill someone if there is a legitimate threat to life and limb, when outside of those situations should a police officer be able to kill?

Castle doctrine in theory makes more situations where a civilian can kill than an officer, as there is the presumed threat there.

Of course in practice it works nothing like that but in theory no police should not have more circumstances to kill than a civilian.
 
arthwollipot said:
To be fair, a cop's decision to kill someone should also be scrutinised for lawfulness. It's just that there are (or should be) more circumstances where it is lawful for a cop to kill someone than for a civilian.
Click to expand...

Sure, there are circumstances where police would have more latitude than a regular citizen. Much more significant is the total lack of general accountability that exists for police in general, even in the most severe cases of poor judgement and behavior.

Well, for example, when a cop shoots an unarmed man crawling on his knees, crying and begging for his life, it results in an acquittal. Ordinary citizens should not expect such positive results in a similar circumstance.

In an interesting reversal of culpability, an armed citizen who uses deadly force appropriately should probably be more concerned about having to defend themselves in court, at great expense, than a cop who uses deadly force inappropriately.

"Used force consistent with my training" is the new "just following orders". Since ordinary citizens are not trained LE officers, that catch-all excuse is not available.
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
So what should those be? If a civilian can only kill someone if there is a legitimate threat to life and limb, when outside of those situations should a police officer be able to kill?
Click to expand...
To protect others, or to protect property.

ponderingturtle said:
Castle doctrine in theory makes more situations where a civilian can kill than an officer, as there is the presumed threat there.
Click to expand...
It probably doesn't really need to be said, but I'm not a fan of castle doctrine.

ponderingturtle said:
Of course in practice it works nothing like that but in theory no police should not have more circumstances to kill than a civilian.
Click to expand...
Then what sets them apart from civilian vigilantes?
 
arthwollipot said:
To protect others, or to protect property.
Click to expand...

Protecting others is covered in self defense for civilians, and property why should the police kill to protect property when the property owners can't? Castle Doctrine makes it easier for property owners to kill on their property when police should in theory need more information than they are trespassing.
It probably doesn't really need to be said, but I'm not a fan of castle doctrine.
Click to expand...

Me neither but the point stands
Then what sets them apart from civilian vigilantes?
Click to expand...

Generally it is the ability to use non lethal forces to gain compliance and the authority to give lawful commands and enforce them. In terms of lethal force they are not granted any specific entitlement. Maybe when there is a legal requirement to flee they are allowed to stand their ground in states with no stand your ground law, so they might not quite have the theoretical limits on having to avoid violence if possible. But in theory legally they are not terribly more open to use lethal force than anyone else.
 
Police have a mandate to protect life and property. It's in their job description. Civilian property owners do not have this mandate. They have a mandate to protect their own lives. Police should therefore have a little more leeway around their decision to use lethal force.

Furthermore, police are trained. They are trained in law and law enforcement - in theory, at least. Civilians are not. A gun in the hands of a cop is not the same as a gun in the hands of a citizen.
 
OK, correct me if I'm wrong on this.

The AR-15 is a military type rifle. It was/is issued to soldiers.

During soldier training and operations, surely they have situations where they have to suddenly fall to the ground with their AR-15 in hand, and get ready to respond to a threat.

In that case, it would be VERY dangerous and counterproductive if the AR-15 had a tendency to "just go off" as it hit the ground. Does the safety easily flick off or something?

Instead, as a non-gun-expert, I expect it will have a solid safety mechanism that is reasonably rugged and reliable under such extreme usage. The user has to be quite deliberate about that action. And I'm pretty sure soldiers are trained to be sure of what they are shooting at first, and what is behind what they are shooting at. Basic stuff.

So if all that is so, I strongly suspect the owner of this AR-15 brandished it with the safety off from the start. When he fell, he fired without taking proper aim or care. Then he stood up and took a couple more potshots. In a suburban area.

I think he's is serious trouble.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom