• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Spokane car theft suspect shot dead: Was it proper?

Dave Workman

Regular Member
Joined
May 23, 2007
Messages
1,874
Location
, ,
Spokane-area residents debate: Should car thieves be shot?

A lively discussion about justice, self-defense, property rights and the use of lethal force has erupted in Spokane this week in the wake of a fatal Monday morning shooting in which a recidivist car thief was fatally shot by his latest victim as he drove away in the shooter’s Chevy Suburban.

http://www.examiner.com/article/spo...te-should-car-thieves-be-shot?cid=db_articles
 

golddigger14s

Activist Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2010
Messages
2,068
Location
Lawton, OK USA
No sympathy here, but it sounds like the car was going away and no longer a threat. A Seattle police officer was recently fired for shooting at a fleeing car.
 

jt59

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2010
Messages
1,005
Location
Central South Sound
Is grand theft auto a felony? If it is then he stopped a man in the commission of a crime.

I thought that was just a movie...

In Washington, it is here...

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=9A.56.065



RCW 9A.56.065

Theft of motor vehicle.

(1) A person is guilty of theft of a motor vehicle if he or she commits theft of a motor vehicle.

(2) Theft of a motor vehicle is a class B felony. [2007 c 199 § 2.]

Notes:

Findings -- Intent -- 2007 c 199: "(1) The legislature finds that:

(a) Automobiles are an essential part of our everyday lives. The west coast is the only region of the United States with an increase of over three percent in motor vehicle thefts over the last several years. The family car is a priority of most individuals and families. The family car is typically the second largest investment a person has next to the home, so when a car is stolen, it causes a significant loss and inconvenience to people, imposes financial hardship, and negatively impacts their work, school, and personal activities. Appropriate and meaningful penalties that are proportionate to the crime committed must be imposed on those who steal motor vehicles;

(b) In Washington, more than one car is stolen every eleven minutes, one hundred thirty-eight cars are stolen every day, someone's car has a one in one hundred seventy-nine chance of being stolen, and more vehicles were stolen in 2005 than in any other previous year. Since 1994, auto theft has increased over fifty-five percent, while other property crimes like burglary are on the decline or holding steady. The national crime insurance bureau reports that Seattle and Tacoma ranked in the top ten places for the most auto thefts, ninth and tenth respectively, in 2004. In 2005, over fifty thousand auto thefts were reported costing Washington citizens more than three hundred twenty-five million dollars in higher insurance rates and lost vehicles. Nearly eighty percent of these crimes occurred in the central Puget Sound region consisting of the heavily populated areas of King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties;

(c) Law enforcement has determined that auto theft, along with all the grief it causes the immediate victims, is linked more and more to offenders engaged in other crimes. Many stolen vehicles are used by criminals involved in such crimes as robbery, burglary, and assault. In addition, many people who are stopped in stolen vehicles are found to possess the personal identification of other persons, or to possess methamphetamine, precursors to methamphetamine, or equipment used to cook methamphetamine;
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Is grand theft auto a felony? If it is then he stopped a man in the commission of a crime.

Just doing a citizens arrest ... if this is justification depends on state law ... in mine, I read cases where you can shoot a murderer in the back and its OK ... but don't recall a car thief being OK to shoot .. maybe yes, maybe no in this thread's set of circumstances.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SivUT1x7j18

Don't do the crime ... Beretta theme ..


(Oh, it was just the wife borrowing the car ... zonkers!)

Would I shoot a guy stealing my car? If it was just the car, probably not ...... if my car had the wife in it, I would not even call my insurance company ! hahahaha

Lots of young idiot kids steal cars for just joy riding ... its a time honored tradition where I grew up

I would not blame someone for shooting though ....
 
Last edited:

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
Tradition says they should be caught and hung.

Same as horse thieves like Wyatt Earp.
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
Is grand theft auto a felony? If it is then he stopped a man in the commission of a crime.

Remember the Officer who shot and killed a driver in Everett? Found not guilty do to acting in the capacity of an officer but was not in self defense and is where we stand, same type of encounter ie felony being committed and trying to run away, you or I did that we would have been convicted.

We have had this discussion before, our self defense laws also include first and foremost it must be necessary and reasonable according to the RCW's. Unless there is a threat to life or limb deadly force is not authorized and employing such can cost you your freedom and security for your family as well.

Personally I think there should be a bounty on their heads, but DFW will not issue tags!!!
 
Last edited:

Jeff Hayes

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
2,569
Location
Long gone
I have been following this closely and either the prosecution is putting together an air tight case or there is a lot of info that has not been made available to the public. At the moment there is not enough info to say if it was justified homicide or not.

I personally think it should be lawful for anyone to use any and all available means to stop anyone that is in the act of committing a felony with the caveat the they had best be correct.

I do not think I would shoot someone for simply stealing my car even if it were lawful to do so. Defending my person or my loved ones is a whole different story.
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,670
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Yeah, but in the days that they hung horse thieves stealing your horse, or your gear especially in remote areas could literally mean life and death....

now if the guy was in a remote area, almost dehydrated and his extra water was in the suburban that the thief was trying to steal then yes I would think that should warrant deadly force...

I mean, I'm conflicted, on one hand it should be free reign for criminals to just take your stuff when they want, but on the other hand this isn't a violent offense against the shooter, and the shooter probably had insurance and could've gotten a rental car or any of that...

I really don't know what to think about it. :confused:
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
Open and shut case.

Dead guy was committing a felony upon the victim (shooter).

Victim slayed felon in the act.

RCW says that is legal. No charges against shooter should ever be filed.
 

Batousaii

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2009
Messages
1,226
Location
Kitsap Co., Washington, USA
... if caught in the act ...... bang!

Putting RCW aside, and moving to my personal opinion: Aggressive Thieves; ones who enter property/houses or cars (empty or occupied), lift property from a victim's person (like pick pockets and purse snatching), or otherwise assert themselves upon another [innocent] person's life with the intent to directly deprive their victim.... Well, they should run the risk of death or great bodily injury at the hands of their victim while the crime is being committed. If you catch a thief in the act, it should be legal to end them.... guarantee crime would be reduced.
 
Last edited:

SpyderTattoo

Regular Member
Joined
May 22, 2008
Messages
1,015
Location
Kent, Washington, USA
The thief knowingly puts his own life at risk. It would be safe for him to assume that sooner or later he will run across a victim that is armed. If the thief cares so little about his own life that he risks being confronted by a gun-carrying victim, why should society care about his life? He got what he deserved.

He'd already been caught stealing cars approximately 40 times... And that's only him getting caught. Probability would state that he got away with it much more than that.
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
No sympathy here, but it sounds like the car was going away and no longer a threat. A Seattle police officer was recently fired for shooting at a fleeing car.

It was a Washington State Patrolman in Renton that shot at the fleeing car. Can be found here:

http://www.khq.com/story/21352078/washington-state-patrol-trooper-fired-for-shot-at-fleeing-car

From my knowledge the Officer was not charged in this shooting, the law allows for officers to use deadly force in this situation but apparently the State Patrol and other departments do not support using deadly force in a situation where an imminent threat to life or limb like it should be.
This does not support the idea that if it was lawful for an officer to do then it is legal for a citizen to, that is not the case.

RCW 9A.16.040
Justifiable homicide or use of deadly force by public officer, peace officer, person aiding.

(1) Homicide or the use of deadly force is justifiable in the following cases:
(a) When a public officer is acting in obedience to the judgment of a competent court; or
(b) When necessarily used by a peace officer to overcome actual resistance to the execution of the legal process, mandate, or order of a court or officer, or in the discharge of a legal duty.
(c) When necessarily used by a peace officer or person acting under the officer's command and in the officer's aid:
(i) To arrest or apprehend a person who the officer reasonably believes has committed, has attempted to commit, is committing, or is attempting to commit a felony;

--snip--

If the law supported using deadly force to stop this type of theft, I am for it but until then I will follow the law.
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
Yeah, but in the days that they hung horse thieves stealing your horse, or your gear especially in remote areas could literally mean life and death....

now if the guy was in a remote area, almost dehydrated and his extra water was in the suburban that the thief was trying to steal then yes I would think that should warrant deadly force...

I mean, I'm conflicted, on one hand it shouldn't be free reign for criminals to just take your stuff when they want, but on the other hand this isn't a violent offense against the shooter, and the shooter probably had insurance and could've gotten a rental car or any of that...

I really don't know what to think about it. :confused:

I'm assuming you meant "shouldn't."

Even back then there were plenty of people that were rich enough to afford the loss of a horse. Heck, most horse thieves were probably hung for stealing a rich man's horse.

Conversely, many cars stolen today belong to people who rely and depend on it for their livelihood as much or more than people who in the Old West could afford a horse.

I have zero tolerance for a thief who takes cars or tools. The criminal intent is far more damning than the value of the goods.
 

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
Tradition says they should be caught and hung.

Same as horse thieves like Wyatt Earp.

Good grief. Please, let's stick to a 150 years later...now.

Should a person be shot while driving away? No. Where's the threat. There's not commission of crime, there's merely a resolution of the crime, not the same thing.

Example: A person is stomping an OC'rs head into the concrete, then begins to walk away. Is the OC'r justified in shooting the perp in the back as he's leaving...no. Does the perp deserve to be shot? Yes.
 
Last edited:

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
Good grief. Please, let's stick to a 150 years later...now.

Should a person be shot while driving away? No. Where's the threat. There's not commission of crime, there's merely a resolution of the crime, not the same thing.

Wow, you COMPLETELY missed the point of my post.

And three of my four lines were modern day, tying in the example of the old ways.

EDIT: Oops, I forgot to look to see who quoted me. I just assumed it was one of the guys following the thread that provide useful comments. My bad for promoting (thereby perpetuating) your perverse puerile purportless prose.

Your secondary questions just proved you haven't even read the thread, as that is exactly what is being debated because it is NOT as simple as you are.

I could have sworn I put you on my ignore list to save my sanity a few weeks ago. That is an omission I shall fix now.
 
Last edited:

Beretta92FSLady

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
5,264
Location
In My Coffee
During the commission of a felony, you can use lethal force. Now, all we have to do is figure out when the commission starts, and when it ends.

Does anyone have some court rulings on this matter?

A couple of years ago a bank robber in downtown Seattle was running from the bank he had just robbed. An officer--if I remember correctly--shot the robber in the back, as he was running away. Not sure how it turned out.
 

BigDave

Opt-Out Members
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
3,456
Location
Yakima, Washington, USA
Would you care to post the RCW that says it is legal to stop a person merely committing a felony upon the victim? One must carefully read the RCW:

Exactly WHO was the shooter defending? There was nobody present in the vehicle when it was stolen, thus there was no one to defend. I used to think differently myself, but I think it was actually Big Dave who convinced me that stopping a felony, by itself, does not justify homicide - homicide is only justified in defense of a person - not property.

Thankfully someone else gets it!

Some seem to think still, the RCW covers when a felony is being committed in their presence and it has to do with upon your person! while in his or her presence or upon a dwelling or place of abode while he or she is there, all of which creates an imminent threat to life or limb.

RCW 9A.16.050
Homicide — By other person — When justifiable.

Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.

For the nay sayers when it comes to this topic, you may very well end up being the reason yourself or another who listens to you either lose your or their freedom and everything you or they own, simply because you are not comprehending.

NavyLCDR the next time I get over that way, I will buy the coffee.
 
Top