• 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.

Utah man shoots would be carjacker

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
In MO, castle doctrine extends to your car (if you are in it) so an attempted car jacking (as opposed to auto theft) justifies lethal force just as if the BG was breaking into your home. But that obviously gets murky if you are not in the car and moreso if it is someone else's car being jacked. You can't shoot a guy breaking into your neighbor's house, but if you are in your neighbor's house invited you can shoot the BG as soon as he comes through the door. But in this case there appears to have been an assault occurring as well, now we are into imminent harm to another and defending that person and ... Whew.

I don't bring up MO to conflate things with Utah, but since I am familiar it was easier for me to construct a brief potentially problematic circle of defense, especially of others. While this appears to have been a good shoot in UT from what I have read, certainly coming to the aid of others is fraught with even more potential legal pitfalls than just defending yourself and family. I write that not as a discouragement or incitement, just stating the facts.

I'm glad this guy helped the lady. If it were my mother or wife I would be extremely grateful. It is also another good example for us to use as a mental scenario as to what we would do and how, if anything.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
My SC CWP instructor taught the four elements of common law self-defense and to kill a carjacker when his hand breaks the plane of the window. Then one is reasonable fear of harm, innocent of instigation, seatbelted has no opportunity to withdraw and used the effective force at hand.
That's what I was taught here in MO too.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
nightmare, et al., your perceptions are valid regarding defending oneself or those you hold dear, but remember the shooter was not the individual being carjacked.

the victim, please remember the alleged assailant at this time is the deceased victim, WAS NOT ARMED!!!

lunging is not quite a definitive term but i would classify it as the police/news buzz word to justify the murder of someone attempting theft of a vehicle.

as previously stated...would any of you who maintain a viable SA gotten close enough in the defense of someone from simple assault (i lack the objective evidence of great bodily harm to vehicle's owner) where the unarmed assailant could have lunged at you to make a difference in the outcome of the fracas?

therefore, if the good Samaritan had maintained appropriate SA, then hypothetically, just pointing a firearm at the assailant should have been quite appropriate in affected a citizen's arrest and nobody would have died for the attempted theft of a vehicle.

ipse
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
nightmare, et al., your perceptions are valid regarding defending oneself or those you hold dear, but remember the shooter was not the individual being carjacked.

the victim, please remember the alleged assailant at this time is the deceased victim, WAS NOT ARMED!!!

The first victim is the woman who was assaulted as part of the attempted carjacking. Given disparity of size (carjacker was of Samoan descent and victim was typical anglo female) the good guy was legally justified in using deadly force to intervene. There is risk if the victim isn't innocent, but in this case that risk did not materialize.

The second victim is the good guy who intervened. The carjacker attempted to assault him and/or gain control of his firearm. That also justified the use of deadly force.

The deceased is not a "victim" except of his own very poor choices and criminal conduct.

And whether he was "armed" or not is irrelevant. The question is whether he presented an imminent, credible threat to the life and limb of an innocent party at the moment deadly force was used against him.

Stop buying into the gun grabber rhetoric of focusing on whether the large, strong male was armed or not. Large, strong men don't need weapons to injure, rape, maim, or kill large segments of society. That is why guns in the hands of potential victims are such a good thing. But the benefits of guns in the hands of LACs will be dramatically reduced if any use of a gun by an LAC, against a violent criminal using "only" his hands, is criminalized.

lunging is not quite a definitive term but i would classify it as the police/news buzz word to justify the murder of someone attempting theft of a vehicle.

Your definition would be grossly at odds with the circumstances here.

I don't care whether the carjacker jumped, lunged, or sauntered toward the good guy. Advancing on me when I have lawfully and reasonably drawn down on you and ordered you to stop your assault of a woman 1/4 your size will get the bad guy shot.

as previously stated...would any of you who maintain a viable SA gotten close enough in the defense of someone from simple assault (i lack the objective evidence of great bodily harm to vehicle's owner) where the unarmed assailant could have lunged at you to make a difference in the outcome of the fracas?

You are in material error regarding Utah law.

Aggravated assault is defined in URS 76-5-103 as an assault using either a dangerous weapon OR "other means or force likely to produce death or serious bodily injury."

Disparity of size and terrified screams for help, along with reasonable man observations are quite sufficient to establish a reasonable belief of aggravated assault taking place.

Furthermore, URS 76-2-402 clearly authorizes deadly force in defense of self or an innocent third party to prevent the commission of a forcible felony including (per (4 a, b, c)) robbery and burglary of a vehicle when occupied at the time of the crime.

Carjacking is defined as an aggravated robbery which is a first degree felony. See URS 76-3-302.


therefore, if the good Samaritan had maintained appropriate SA, then hypothetically, just pointing a firearm at the assailant should have been quite appropriate in affected a citizen's arrest and nobody would have died for the attempted theft of a vehicle.

Nobody died as a result of an attempted theft of a vehicle, including the real victim (driver of the car) because a good Samaritan, LAC gun owner intervened.

The bad guy died because he attempted to assault or disarm the good guy rather than complying or even turning tail and running away. Whether the good guy was 10 feet away, or 40 feet away, the bad guy can choose to charge the good guy. In this case, the decision to do so was fatal for the bad guy.

You and his mother may mourn his death and claim it wasn't justified or needed.

Sensible folks see it quite differently even if we mourn the long string of criminal choices that victimized multiple innocent people and lead to the bad guy's death.

Odds of the good Samaritan facing any criminal or civil court issues over this shooting are rapidly approaching zero.

Charles
 
Last edited:

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
...Stand-your-ground: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia...

To everyone: please stop using the liberal's pet term for this law. It is not a "Stand Your Ground" law. It is a "No Duty to Retreat" law. Using their term just reinforces the emotions they want to attach to it.
 
Last edited:

1245A Defender

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2009
Messages
4,365
Location
north mason county, Washington, USA
Wowwie!!!

The first victim is the woman who was assaulted as part of the attempted carjacking. Given disparity of size (carjacker was of Samoan descent and victim was typical anglo female) the good guy was legally justified in using deadly force to intervene. There is risk if the victim isn't innocent, but in this case that risk did not materialize.

The second victim is the good guy who intervened. The carjacker attempted to assault him and/or gain control of his firearm. That also justified the use of deadly force.

The deceased is not a "victim" except of his own very poor choices and criminal conduct.

And whether he was "armed" or not is irrelevant. The question is whether he presented an imminent, credible threat to the life and limb of an innocent party at the moment deadly force was used against him.

Stop buying into the gun grabber rhetoric of focusing on whether the large, strong male was armed or not. Large, strong men don't need weapons to injure, rape, maim, or kill large segments of society. That is why guns in the hands of potential victims are such a good thing. But the benefits of guns in the hands of LACs will be dramatically reduced if any use of a gun by an LAC, against a violent criminal using "only" his hands, is criminalized.



Your definition would be grossly at odds with the circumstances here.

I don't care whether the carjacker jumped, lunged, or sauntered toward the good guy. Advancing on me when I have lawfully and reasonably drawn down on you and ordered you to stop your assault of a woman 1/4 your size will get the bad guy shot.



You are in material error regarding Utah law.

Aggravated assault is defined in URS 76-5-103 as an assault using either a dangerous weapon OR "other means or force likely to produce death or serious bodily injury."

Disparity of size and terrified screams for help, along with reasonable man observations are quite sufficient to establish a reasonable belief of aggravated assault taking place.

Furthermore, URS 76-2-402 clearly authorizes deadly force in defense of self or an innocent third party to prevent the commission of a forcible felony including (per (4 a, b, c)) robbery and burglary of a vehicle when occupied at the time of the crime.

Carjacking is defined as an aggravated robbery which is a first degree felony. See URS 76-3-302.




Nobody died as a result of an attempted theft of a vehicle, including the real victim (driver of the car) because a good Samaritan, LAC gun owner intervened.

The bad guy died because he attempted to assault or disarm the good guy rather than complying or even turning tail and running away. Whether the good guy was 10 feet away, or 40 feet away, the bad guy can choose to charge the good guy. In this case, the decision to do so was fatal for the bad guy.

You and his mother may mourn his death and claim it wasn't justified or needed.

Sensible folks see it quite differently even if we mourn the long string of criminal choices that victimized multiple innocent people and lead to the bad guy's death.

Odds of the good Samaritan facing any criminal or civil court issues over this shooting are rapidly approaching zero.

Charles


You have written a long winded screed,,,,
But in this case I think All of the words you wrote were Needed to convey the full thought!

I agree with your post 100%
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
The first victim snip...

Charles

all that information without any type of cite and from such a small yahoo news article...I am sooo impressed...

especially since you did not specifically answer my post's concerns but rather diverted with this hyperbole scenario you've posted.

BTW, nobody stated UT statutes didn't say someone couldn't defend others, I only question the defense of someone not being threatened to death or grave bodily injury...not what ifs as your post alludes to.

additionally, you categorically failed on your response regarding the lunge response...recommend you do some research because in another thread where the bloke supposedly had a knife, you could be dead. *yes what if statement but proven by research on SA issues*

you know piper remember a recent thread where I was chastised for wanting to take out a renta-cop who was holding a citizen on the ground at gun point (now that is an objective evidence of possible death or bodily injury to a victim)...now your perception has changed to death over someone doing simple assault...wow!!

ipse

addendum...i'm awaiting the news flash the samaritian was an off duty something or other...
 
Last edited:

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
(Editing this post as I intended to specify the following related to trajectory was reported on another forum by another individual. I have asked for a cite on the other forum as to the original info and when received I will provide. End of edit)
(2nd Edit---- Original poster on a different internet forum that I used as a source for the following info has NOT be forthcoming with a cite so the following can only be considered and unfounded and rumor. I am leaving the original post unchanged but adding this editorial addition. end of 2nd edit)
(3rd edit---- Original poster of the following info has confirmed to me that the info I posted here thinking it was fact was his opinion. Sorry to all for posting what I thought was fact but was only an opinion of another but not indicated on the original post as such---- I see absolutely no need to post a cite to confirm this info was an opinion or to provide the online location where I originally found the 'opinion'!)


Additional info in the form of the bullet trajectory---- entered the top of the heart, exited the bottom of the heart, then the bullet lodged in the spine----
This would suggest to me the Carjacker (BG) had his head down, was leaning towards the person using the defensive tool, and in order to maintain balance one would have to be accelerating towards the muzzle end of said defensive tool.

BG seems to have made a significant series of bad choices that morning alone. It is sad that his life has been lost. But much more sad had the carjacked woman or the man coming to her aid had lost their lives.

BG bears the brunt of his choices and this time he lost all!
 
Last edited:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
joe, et al., the victim was unarmed!!!

the alleged victim had perhaps committed simple assault at best.

next...your cite for the hyperbole about the autopsy report of how the victim died?

finally...think about this...according your mythical autopsy report, entered the top of the heart exiting the bottom of the heart...for that to have occurred, the deceased would have had to be completely bent over at their hips or the shooter had to be towering over the deceased (such as the deceased was going to their knees to surrender to have sustained that type of fatal wound.

do me a favor...facing a mirror, lunge at it and see where you upper chest goes or is positioned...cuz as you lunge your head is still held high so your eyes can see where your body is trying to take you. it is a physiological kinda thing and football players have to work very hard to overcome the instinct. with your head held high, it is darn tough to get a bullet into the top of the heart on a downward trajectory to exit the bottom of the heart.

btw joe, you are going to post your cite of where you found the autopsy report as i want to send a note to the medical examiner for getting the examination of the victim done and the paper work done in less than a couple of days.

and i do love the police interjecting in the article posted not once but several times about the victim having 'numerous felon warrants' as trying to justify the killing,

ipse
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
joe, et al., the victim was unarmed!!!

the alleged victim had perhaps committed simple assault at best.

next...your cite for the hyperbole about the autopsy report of how the victim died?

finally...think about this...according your mythical autopsy report, entered the top of the heart exiting the bottom of the heart...for that to have occurred, the deceased would have had to be completely bent over at their hips or the shooter had to be towering over the deceased (such as the deceased was going to their knees to surrender to have sustained that type of fatal wound.

do me a favor...facing a mirror, lunge at it and see where you upper chest goes or is positioned...cuz as you lunge your head is still held high so your eyes can see where your body is trying to take you. it is a physiological kinda thing and football players have to work very hard to overcome the instinct. with your head held high, it is darn tough to get a bullet into the top of the heart on a downward trajectory to exit the bottom of the heart.

btw joe, you are going to post your cite of where you found the autopsy report as i want to send a note to the medical examiner for getting the examination of the victim done and the paper work done in less than a couple of days.

and i do love the police interjecting in the article posted not once but several times about the victim having 'numerous felon warrants' as trying to justify the killing,

ipse
Incorrect.
Carjacking is defined as an aggravated robbery which is a first degree felony. See URS 76-3-302. - utbagpiper
I too researched UT law prior to posting the below.

OC for ME
Tongue firmly planted in check. Not all assaults are created equal under the law. A armed assault would most likely justify lethal force. State laws vary and your state's law must be researched to be sure.

Some members of OCDO have stated, repeatedly, that the theft of property is not justification to employ lethal force. In this incident it appears that the shooter may not be prosecuted.​

 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
Numerous felony warrants goes to character. Being a violent menace to society and the lady in the car in particular was not a one time act by the bad guy. So what that the BG as unarmed. Millions have been seriously injured or killed with bare hands. I can't work up even the most mild sympathy for Mr DRT and expect society is the better for his removal.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
OC4ME, uh, excuse me? er, could you explain which part of my post did you find incorrect?

the unarmed part?

simple assault? uh, the crime of stealing the vehicle may be considered aggravated robbery by UT statutes but he committed simple assault IAW 76-5-102 as the robbery was not completed and therefore not chargeable!!

my comments about the mythical autopsy or hyperbole presented by joe since there is no cite yet provided for other readers to review?

my comments about the concept of the victim's body position to meet the bullet's path?

my comments about sending the medical examiner thanks for processing and releasing the autopsy results so quickly.

of my comment about the constant mention the victim had outstanding warrants against him...notice nobody has stated what the warrants are?? possibly for the vehicle he stole earlier in the day? pressing the mantra...not guilty until judged by their peers.

my statement of death sentence for simple assault or even robbery is still harsh to say the least.

finally, nothing has been stated on SA of the shooter...except by piper who feels standing close enough to let any badguy even attempt to get hold of the samaritian.

so what part was incorrect OC4ME???
ipse
 
Last edited:

J_dazzle23

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
643
This guy was not shot because he stole a car. This guy was not shot because he committed a violent felony.

This guy was shot because he tried attacked a man with a gun to take the gun while committing a violent felony.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
This guy was not shot because he stole a car. This guy was not shot because he committed a violent felony.

This guy was shot because he tried attacked a man with a gun to take the gun while committing a violent felony.

hyperbole on trying to take the gun!!!

again based on joe's un-cited autopsy information, look in a mirror and lunge and tell me how well that works for you.

again, nobody has discussed shooter's SA and again if the shooter were maintaining good SA there was no worry about lunge...

ipse
 

J_dazzle23

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 4, 2013
Messages
643
hyperbole on trying to take the gun!!!

again based on joe's un-cited autopsy information, look in a mirror and lunge and tell me how well that works for you.

again, nobody has discussed shooter's SA and again if the shooter were maintaining good SA there was no worry about lunge...

ipse
I'll discuss sa.

Yes, perhaps it could have been better, as to stay further away from the attacker.

But one cannot discredit the simple fact that in attacking the man with the gun, from ANY distance forced his hand. The guy attacking forced the shooters' hand. He mad that decision, not the shooter. He was shot as a direct consequence of attacking the man intervening in a violent felony.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
joe, et al., the victim was unarmed!!!

Yes SHE was.

The violent criminal was quite well armed using his vast superior size and strength to assault an unarmed victim. I hope SHE has learned her lesson and chooses to get training and arm herself against future assaults by violent criminals.

the alleged victim had perhaps committed simple assault at best.

"Simply assault?!??!?"

Tell you what. We'll let a man of comparable size and character assault you as you sit in your car, unarmed, and see how well you fair. I trust you are larger and stronger than a typical Utah housewife.

Simple assault is when there is no weapon used AND there is no significant risk of serious harm.

Let us also not forget the first degree felony of car jacking.

and i do love the police interjecting in the article posted not once but several times about the victim having 'numerous felon warrants' as trying to justify the killing,

Those and the crimes alleged against the criminal (not victim, but criminal) that very morning all speak to character and provide some collaboration to the victim's and LAC's account of what happened. In other words, no sane (or literate) man is scratching his head trying to figure out why some choir boy went off the rails and suddenly started to assault people, or whether two total strangers have concocted a story and convinced a bunch of witnesses to back them up. Rather, it is quite easy to understand exactly what happened here. Longtime criminal picked the wrong location to ply his next crime and was removed from the gene pool in an act of an LAC lawfully defending himself.

Now, why don't you either provide some citations that the violent thug wasn't actually a threat to life and limb, or else give up this delusion?

Whether the LAC with the gun could have done something slightly better is a fine debate. But since you have no idea how close or far away he was, your entire thesis is concocted from whole cloth anyway.

Your continued references to the violent, felon thug as a "victim" are tiresome and offensive. Your claims that the real victim wasn't in any real danger (ie "only" simple assault) are offensive, myopic, and downright ignorant.

And please, buy a keyboard with a working shift key and learn to use it to provide some semblance of appropriate capitalization.

Charles
 

MAC702

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
6,331
Location
Nevada
hyperbole on trying to take the gun!!!

again based on joe's un-cited autopsy information, look in a mirror and lunge and tell me how well that works for you.

again, nobody has discussed shooter's SA and again if the shooter were maintaining good SA there was no worry about lunge...

ipse

I've NOT studied this case in detail, but I will say that if you don't want your motives questioned posthumously, don't be an already-established violent bad guy rushing toward an armed good guy during the commission of your crimes.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Yes SHE was. (1)

The violent criminal was quite well armed (2) using his vast superior size and strength to assault an unarmed victim. I hope SHE has learned her lesson and chooses to get training and arm herself against future assaults by violent criminals.



"Simply assault?!??!?"

Tell you what. We'll let a man of comparable size and character assault you as you sit in your car, unarmed, and see how well you fair. I trust you are larger and stronger than a typical Utah housewife.

Simple assault is when there is no weapon used AND there is no significant risk of serious harm. (3)

Let us also not forget the first degree felony of car jacking. (4)



Those and the crimes alleged against the criminal (not victim, but criminal) that very morning all speak to character and provide some collaboration to the victim's and LAC's account of what happened. In other words, no sane (or literate) man is scratching his head trying to figure out why some choir boy went off the rails and suddenly started to assault people, or whether two total strangers have concocted a story and convinced a bunch of witnesses to back them up. Rather, it is quite easy to understand exactly what happened here. Longtime criminal picked the wrong location to ply his next crime and was removed from the gene pool in an act of an LAC lawfully defending himself.

Now, why don't you either provide some citations that the violent thug wasn't actually a threat to life and limb, (5) or else give up this delusion?

Whether the LAC with the gun could have done something slightly better is a fine debate. But since you have no idea how close or far away he was, your entire thesis is concocted from whole cloth anyway.

Your continued references to the violent, felon thug as a "victim" are tiresome and offensive. (6) Your claims that the real victim wasn't in any real danger (ie "only" simple assault) are offensive, myopic, and downright ignorant.

And please, buy a keyboard with a working shift key and learn to use it to provide some semblance of appropriate capitalization.

Charles

1. hooray a breakthrough
2. truly then the news article was mistaken? armed with what pray tell?
3. see news article, victim was unarmed and his intended victim did not suffer any injury! therefore simple assault as they were playing **** **** at the vehicle's door!!!
4. sorry see previous post...this portion of the activity was not carried out therefore no crime!!.
5. driver of the vehicle was unhurt according to the news article and did not require ER treatment therefore, hyperbole on life and limb threat unless you can prove otherwise.
6. again has warrants...so what...fail to pay a traffic ticket and see what is issued by the bench. and yes victim...everyone else went home didn't they?

once again, you are lovely when you are challenged and don't like the comments presented which goes against your OPINION which then forces you to resort to all kinds of subjective opinions thrown about about the poster, quite testy aren't you!!

BTW...PIPPER...YOU HAVE A CITE FOR THE PREVIOUSLY POSTED HYPERBOLE YOU POSTED OR ARE YOU GOING TO TROT ON YOUR NORMAL MERRY WAY...darn the caps lock does work on my keyboard...looky there...thanks for the suggestion

ipse
 
Last edited by a moderator:

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
I've NOT studied this case in detail, but I will say that if you don't want your motives questioned posthumously, don't be an already-established violent bad guy rushing toward an armed good guy during the commission of your crimes.

you are of course right, tuesday quarterbacking is quite the sport these days

and i get the impression the whole gaggle of them, driver, victim, and samaritian were apparently wrestling at the vehicle door...SA gone...

and already established violent bad guy...careful MAC what you bite into from the hyperbole on the individual having 'felon warrants'...

ipse
 
Top