Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Man injured in drive-by shooting

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=3758560





    Man injured in drive-by shooting
    July 14th, 2008 @ 12:00pm
    By Becky Bruce
    Neighbors are hoping for answers and saying prayers of gratitude after a drive-by shooting near 800 West and 300 North in Salt Lake City.
    Police say a 24-year-old man and his girlfriend were walking in the area early this morning when someone in a black truck opened fire, hitting the man in the leg. He's expected to be OK.
    Maurice, who lives in the area, says, "We have things like that happen every once in a while." He says he's just grateful it was still dark outside, so children weren't at school down the street. He says, "That's what's scary about it. I've never heard of that, and I really don't like that going on, especially so close to a school."



    Most of the houses are modest, but you see lots of bicycles and lawn chairs. Still, another resident says after dark, the difference is night and day. She says, "It probably sounds crazy, but this is the west side."
    Police are still looking for four men, last seen driving a black truck and possibly wearing cowboy hats.
    E-mail: bbruce@ksl.com

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Ogden, UT, ,
    Posts
    258

    Post imported post


    What's with this rash of drive by's? is this some gang initiation thing or something?

    And what can one do to defend them self from something like this? Can you shoot back event though there driving off or what? Its not fair to take some shots a just some person or kid and just drive off, cowards!

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Morgan, Utah, USA
    Posts
    2,580

    Post imported post

    usSiR wrote:

    What's with this rash of drive by's? is this some gang initiation thing or something?

    And what can one do to defend them self from something like this? Can you shoot back event though there driving off or what? Its not fair to take some shots a just some person or kid and just drive off, cowards!
    You are covered legally to fire back. Self-defense.

    TJ

  4. #4
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    <http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148...id=3758560>

    The story has now been updated. It seems the shooting actually took place outside the California Club when a fight broke out in the parking lot. The victim was not involved in the fight, but seems to have just caught a stray bullet. For some unexplained reason he waited to call police until he was at the location originally given in the story as the location of drive by.

    This means the shooting was a little less "random" that originally thought. It also highlights that one can avoid a LOT of problems in life simply by carefully choosing where and when to spend time, with whom to associate, etc.

    It just seems to me that being at a club or bar or in a parking lot of either around closing time is a high risk endeavor. Dealing drugs, or associating with those who do is also high risk. Even many of the "random" drive by shootings that do happen end up being not nearly so random as someone in the targeted home is associating with gangs.

    Of course, one cannot eliminate all chance of some criminal trying to make us a victim. Hence, we carry means for self-defense, maintain situation awareness, and otherwise take prudent, reasonable measures to protect ourselves and loved ones. But it sure looks like one can dramatically reduce the odds of ever needing to use the guns we carry by avoiding--to the extent possible--those locations and persons most prone to criminal violence.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  5. #5
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    UTOC-45-44 wrote:
    usSiR wrote:

    What's with this rash of drive by's? is this some gang initiation thing or something?

    And what can one do to defend them self from something like this? Can you shoot back event though there driving off or what? Its not fair to take some shots a just some person or kid and just drive off, cowards!
    You are covered legally to fire back. Self-defense.

    TJ
    Interesting question. While I have no moral or ethical objections to taking a few well placed shots at a drive by shooter, on what basis might a victim claim "self-defense" after the shooting has stopped and the criminal is beating a hasty retreat?

    Attempts to stop a fleeing felon, perhaps?

    Or might one be better served to return fire IMMEDIATELY so as to STOP the attack in progress? If it takes a few moments to realize the attack has ended (as the car drives away) and that no shots are being fired from the rear of the car, well that might be fully expected in such a situation and certainly one would not expect a crime victim to instaneously stop shooting in such a case.

    Again, I have no moral or ethical objections to shooting at such dirt bags as long as possible. And I think it SHOULD be legal to do so. As a jury member, I'm likely to vote to acquit anyone who does so in technical violation of some law. Indeed, as the recent case of the guy who chased home invaders down the street shows, barring the unintended injury of some innocent third party, probably not even likely to be charged in such cases.

    But I'm just not sure how one claims self defense to justify shooting at someone who has already stopped shooting at you and is fleeing the scene.

    It is an interesting question. Any additional thoughts on it?

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    While in theory I may agree I'm afraid that if I did it I would of course injure the one "innocent" in the vehicle that truly knew nothing about what was going to happen. If I see the shooter and have a clean shot however....

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    839

    Post imported post

    I don't know if it's legal in Utah to protect a third party but when someone who has just shot at you is still armed and dangerous... Think of it this way, someone comes up and starts shooting, then they lower their weapon and walk away. They're still armed, and the randomness of the first attack indicates intent and they already demonstrated ability and opportunity. I think the same applies if they're in a car.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Firestone, Colorado
    Posts
    1,189

    Post imported post

    asforme wrote:
    I don't know if it's legal in Utah to protect a third party but when someone who has just shot at you is still armed and dangerous... Think of it this way, someone comes up and starts shooting, then they lower their weapon and walk away. They're still armed, and the randomness of the first attack indicates intent and they already demonstrated ability and opportunity. I think the same applies if they're in a car.
    It is perfectly legal to protect a third party in Utah (is there any state where it isn't?), but I don't think the mere fact that they've shown themselves willing to attack at random would be justification for pre-emptively shooting them before they attack someone else. If you see they're about to shoot at someone else, or they are shooting at someone else, you can certainly shoot back to stop them.

  9. #9
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    asforme wrote:
    I don't know if it's legal in Utah to protect a third party but when someone who has just shot at you is still armed and dangerous... Think of it this way, someone comes up and starts shooting, then they lower their weapon and walk away. They're still armed, and the randomness of the first attack indicates intent and they already demonstrated ability and opportunity. I think the same applies if they're in a car.
    Interesting theory, but not one I'd want to stand on. Unless you can ID a SPECIFIC third party who is immediate and imminent risk you are not really defending a third party, you are simply keeping the general peace. And THAT job is generally left to sworn peace officers, NOT regular citizens who choose to carry guns.

    Of course, if you choose to chase the bad guys down and everything turns out great, you might get 10 seconds on the evening news for being a hero even while the police chief makes the obligatory remarks about them discouraging citizens from doing such things even though they are glad your situation ended well. But one can only imagine how things might go if anything goes wrong in such efforts.

    No, legally, I think the safest course is to defend yourself from the immediate threat. If you shoot at the vehicle/shooter after it has clearly disengaged and is fleeing the area I'd think I'd want a really good lawyer before saying anything beyond, "I was in fear for my life and acted to defend myself." (A good idea anytime a gun is discharged in self defense.)

    Maybe it turns out you were afraid they were turning to make another pass and you were encouraging them to keep going rather than coming back. Maybe you thought they were still shooting at you as they sped away. Maybe it simply took you a few moments to realize the threat had passed before you stopped returning fire. But I'd darn well run it past a really good lawyer before admitting to any of the above to cops, DAs, etc and I would not claim to have been deliberately trying to protect some unidentified third party, keep the general peace, or even apprehend suspects if any other honest explanation were available to me. And I sure did not shoot to get even, dispsense justice, or try to kill the sob who so richly deserved it. I shoot ONLY to end a threat. That is my line and I'm sticking to it.

    I'm not a cop, I don't want to be a cop; I don't have the training or legal protections a cop has when he acts in the duties of his office. When bad things happen, I get to (and society expects, darn near requires me to) run away if possible. It is cops who are expected to run toward the danger, deal with it, apprehend bad guys, and keep the general peace.
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Cottonwood Heights, Utah, USA
    Posts
    545

    Post imported post

    utbagpiper wrote:
    [snip]

    Maybe it turns out you were afraid they were turning to make another pass and you were encouraging them to keep going rather than coming back.¬* Maybe you thought they were still shooting at you as they sped away.¬* Maybe it simply took you a few moments to realize the threat had passed before you stopped returning fire.¬* But I'd darn well run it past¬* a really good lawyer before admitting to any of the above to cops, DAs, etc and I would not claim to have been deliberately trying to protect some unidentified third party, keep the general peace, or even apprehend suspects if any other honest explanation were available to me.¬*¬*¬* And I sure did not shoot to get even, dispsense justice, or try to kill the sob who so richly deserved it.¬* I shoot ONLY to end a threat.¬* That is my line and I'm sticking to it.
    [snip]
    This is the line of thinking I was leaning toward... If someone was involved in a drive by shooting, and returned fire, I personally wouldn't be offended if they continued firing or even started firing as the vehicle was leaving.

    I say this because I don't know if the lull in shots is just the person reloading/clearing a jam, and this could possibly be the only chance at defending themselves before the bad guys open fire again...

    As long as you can see the bad guys, and reasonably be hit with a bullet from their vehicle, I would feel that person's life was still in danger and they would be justified shooting to stop the threat.

    Any threat in the vehicle.

    Oh yeah, and +1 on not sharing anything with the police until you talk to your lawyer.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    West Valley City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    44

    Post imported post

    Here's my .02

    "You are responsible for any damage your bullet causes until it stops moving."

    Assuming that you can hit a speeding vehicle, the windows your aiming at will not stop a bullet, nor will plastic and sheet metal, so what's behind the vehicle you're shooting at? A neighborhood in Rose Park full of elderly retirees, or maybe an elementary school up the road in Glendale, some bystander walking down the street in Salt Lake. By the time you can make a compitent decision about what's behind your intended target, it's too late and they're too far gone.

    If you're alone in the middle of the desert, by all means, bust a move straight out of Lethal Weapon. But the likelihood of a drive-bay happening in a sparsely populated area are slim to nil. Gotta see the big picture.

  12. #12
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795

    Post imported post

    Narcisist wrote:
    Here's my .02

    "You are responsible for any damage your bullet causes until it stops moving."

    Assuming that you can hit a speeding vehicle, the windows your aiming at will not stop a bullet, nor will plastic and sheet metal, so what's behind the vehicle you're shooting at? A neighborhood in Rose Park full of elderly retirees, or maybe an elementary school up the road in Glendale, some bystander walking down the street in Salt Lake. By the time you can make a compitent decision about what's behind your intended target, it's too late and they're too far gone.

    If you're alone in the middle of the desert, by all means, bust a move straight out of Lethal Weapon. But the likelihood of a drive-bay happening in a sparsely populated area are slim to nil. Gotta see the big picture.
    Not entirely true from a legal point of view. IFF a person is within his legal right to use deadly force against a criminal assault, the criminal MAY well bear legal responsibility for what that bullet does.

    In the easy case, two criminals try to rob a store and the clerk shoots one dead. The second, surviving criminal may well be charged with felony murder for the death of his associate at the hands of the clerk. Being engaged in a felonious act, he bears full legal responsibility for any injuries or deaths that result from that act, even if inflicted by a third party.

    Now, I'm sure there are any number of exceptions to consider. And of course, the details of the law notwithstanding any decent moral person will feel moral responsibility at least for what happens from any round he discharges.

    So while I have to correct your absolute statement about *(legal) responsibility for the fired round, I completely agree with you about the broader concern of where your rounds end up should you shoot at a vehicle that is clearly fleeing from you.

    Returning fire in immediate, necessary self-defense while being shot at carries the same risks of course. But the necessity of effective defense may demand it regardless. But as the threat diminishes, so too does any moral and legal justification to place innocent by standers in danger by continued firing.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    West Valley City, Utah, USA
    Posts
    44

    Post imported post

    I would think there would be a difference between an accomplice helping commit a felony, and some guy sitting in his living room watching tv. Shooting an innocent bystander by accident wouldn't be as black and white as the accomplice committing a felony. IF you were freed of any criminal charges, that would be round 1. Then you get ready for the civil suits brought by the family of the deceased for wrongful death, etc. Good luck explaining your way out of that. I'm not saying it's right to let some gangbangers get away with drive-by's. I just think that there would be no responsible way to return fire in one.

    Besides, putting yourself in a position where your shots could harm innocent people and shooting anyway is exactly what the gangbangers do. And you'd be hiding behind a "they started it" defense. You'd be as bad as them.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Post imported post

    Police shoot many bystanders every year, legally.
    "Oops, my bad, move."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •