Man Sentenced to Eight Years After Bullet Fired at Car Thief Hits Neighbor

[Sequins]

At the end of the day 8 years for murder is pretty lenient, and whether he meant to or not that's what he did. He murdered someone's grandma in his zeal to stop a car thief. If it were my grandmother taken away in this manner 8 years would hardly satisfy me.

[WyMark]

Originally Posted by Targa

What we don't know other than what we read is his demeanor, was his over all attitude towards the incident indifferent/unremorseful? That plays into sentencing as well.

I don't know if it plays into the sentencing, but if it had been a factor earlier he may not have made such a poor decision.

[OldMarksman]

I don't agree

Amprecon, can you offer any lucid and convincing objective argument that would indicate why the superior court rulings handed down in the course of appeals concerning this issue in Tennessee might have been improper?

[amprecon]

I will not argue with you OldMarksman. The thief incited the reaction from the man whose vehicle was stolen. Had the vehicle not been stolen the shot would not have been fired.
The blame lies mostly with the car thief. There's not much worse in this world then pedophiles and thieves, the sooner the world is rid of them the better off the world will be, superior court decisions or otherwise. It's those legal bureaucrats and their supposed "superior" court rulings that continues to let these dirt-bags abide amongst the law-abiding causing perpetual strife and harm.
The car owner would be jailed had he hit the car thief too, there is too much protection for villains and too little protection for the law-abiding trying to protect what is theirs, I simply believe this is not right regardless of what your "infallible" laws say.

As a matter of fact, I am of the opinion that if a criminal is released by whatever authority, and goes and commits any other crimes, those that released them should be held accountable for the same crimes, this would put an end to early releases and keep those in prison who belong in prison, not amongst the populace.

This is my opinion, I have no law degree and I won't change my mind on my beliefs, take it for what you will.

[JohnKSa]

amprecon,

I understand your opinion and your rationale, however you need to be aware that while a lot of what you say may have a certain appeal to some, acting on it will create a situation where the person doing so is likely to be charged and convicted of serious crimes.

...I simply believe this is not right regardless of what your "infallible" laws say.

Since laws are made by humans, they are, of course, fallible. However, that doesn't change the fact that they are the standard by which our actions (and the actions of others) will be judged--literally.

Therefore, they are not your laws or my laws, they are our laws, in the sense that we will all be held to the same standard that they create.

...there is too much protection for villains and too little protection for the law-abiding trying to protect what is theirs...

The idea that a person has the right to protect their property even if it results in the death of an innocent person is going to be unacceptable, even repugnant to any reasonable person. I'm all for property rights, but I don't want the law to protect my neighbor if he kills my wife while blasting away at someone trying to take his stuff. My wife's life is far more important than any of his possessions. Not only to my wife, and not only to me and my family, but also in the view of society. The bottom line is the law that prosecuted the man was about protecting life which is far more valuable than a car.

You don't like car thieves and pedophiles. That's a good list, but it would be a better list if you added people who have so little regard for human life that they are willing to place the value of their property above that of human life.

The thief incited the reaction from the man whose vehicle was stolen. Had the vehicle not been stolen the shot would not have been fired.

While that is true, the person who bears the ultimate responsibility for the tragedy is the person who, in violation of at least two laws/regulations, and in violation of at least one of the basic gun safety rules, fired a gun and killed a person.

[OldMarksman]

I will not argue with you OldMarksman. The thief incited the reaction from the man whose vehicle was stolen.

What does the have to do with it?

Had the vehicle not been stolen the shot would not have been fired.

There are circumstances in which a person committing a criminal act would be found liable for death or injury to others, when the use of the force that caused the harm had been immediately necessary or that force had been used by another accomplice in the crime.

Learned persons have defined those circumstances in serious discussions over the centuries. This was not one of those circumstances, as the now-convicted killer Mr. Tobin Hugh Panton has learned. His action was neither reasonable nor necessary.

Who in his right mind would fire ten shots at his own vehicle?

This is my opinion, I have no law degree and I won't change my mind on my beliefs, take it for what you will.

I really do not care what your opinion might be. It would be more than foolish to act on it , however.

And now that you have expressed your disregard for the law publicly, you should hope more than anyone that your words do not come back to haunt you.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

If you want a reasoned analysis of the principles and history of when to use lethal force, I suggest:

Killing in Self-Defence (Oxford Monographs on Criminal Law and Justice)Feb 8, 2007
by Fiona Leverick

It is a touch dense, but it gets you behind emotional cliches. In this case, I think the shooter takes great personal responsibility. He acted incorrectly. That there was a criminal actor that started the does not release him from the penalties he accrued.

The emotional, feel good idea that he's bad, let's shoot and the consequences be damned doesn't hold up.

OldM. and John have it nailed.

[brian33x51]

Originally Posted by Sequins

At the end of the day 8 years for murder is pretty lenient, and whether he meant to or not that's what he did. He murdered someone's grandma in his zeal to stop a car thief. If it were my grandmother taken away in this manner 8 years would hardly satisfy me.

Technically should be manslaughter, NOT murder. He had zero intention of killing that lady.

As for right and wrong, and I know we aren't under the secular part of the mosaic legal code, but there's nothing ethically wrong killing someone who's in process of stealing your stuff. Don't take your life into your own hands by stealing things that aren't yours. I'd say most state laws are wrong, but it should mostly just be a pain in the rear to restrain onesself from offing a blatant in your face thief.

A problem is that I don't know if most people who haven't take a class even know they can't off a thief in these circumstances.

[JohnKSa]

...mosaic legal code, but there's nothing ethically wrong killing someone who's in process of stealing your stuff.

I'm not an expert on the Mosaic code, but from what I can tell, it only allows killing a thief at night, and only if the thief is caught in the act of breaking in.

Killing a thief in the daytime was murder. As far as I can tell, a thief caught after the fact (fleeing with property or in possession of stolen property) was penalized civilly (repayment of the loss plus a penalty fee) but not criminally unless he could not pay.

[OldMarksman]

Technically should be manslaughter, NOT murder. He had zero intention of killing that lady.

True. He had in fact entered a guilty plea for first degree manslaughter.

...but there's nothing ethically wrong killing someone who's in process of stealing your stuff.

Few people agree with that today.

In fact, in the laws so clearly explained by William Blackstone,, deadly force was generally excusable only in cases in which the death penalty would apply (that included every crime then classified as a felony).

But the definition of felony has been expanded many times over since then.

We do not impose the death penalty today for using someone else's credit card, and that differs little from lifting a wad of cash from an unattended purse.

A problem is that I don't know if most people who haven't take a class even know they can't off a thief in these circumstances.

That is sometimes an issue, but as you know, ignorance of the law is not a defense. Note also that few people seem to understand the difference between robbery and theft.

Was Mr. Panton ignorant of the law? Maybe, maybe not. But he certainly was impulsively stupid in his actions.

He certainly did not consider the consequences, and he did not even think about the necessity as he shot holes in his own vehicle.

Anyone in his right mind would realize that radio and telephone messages to and among a police force would have been much more effective than his own bullets.

That is one big reason that the old fleeing felon rule at Common Law, which made sense centuries ago, is no longer with us.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

there's nothing ethically wrong killing someone who's in process of stealing your stuff. Don't take your life into your own hands by stealing things that aren't yours.

So if you own a drugstore and you see a 5 year old steal an Almond Joy - shoot him or her down.

You are at your friend's house. He is doing his income tax and tells you he is padding his deductions as he sits at TurboTax. Since you are a loyal American and he is stealing from our country, shoot him?

[K_Mac]

There are some ideas in this thread that have me talking to myself:

1) That it is ethical to kill someone in the process of taking your "stuff." As Glenn points out it is not that simple. Is it ethical to kill the neighbor kid for taking a bicycle from my yard?

Killing someone over the theft of personal property, with rare exception, would not be considered ethical by most thinking adults.

2) The indiscriminate use of deadly force to stop the theft of personal property is justified. See #1 above.

3) The consequences of indiscriminate use of lethal force to stop, or attempt to stop the theft of personal property is the responsibility of the thief.

Grandma's death, damage to the property of others, or any other unintended damage caused by the reckless action of the shooter is the responsilty of the shooter. To conclude otherwise a person would have to believe that his stuff is more valuable than the lives and property of anyone in gunshot range.

Even a sworn police officer with the legal responsibility to protect the community at large cannot indiscriminately use lethal force to stop a fleeing felon.

4) That a thief and a pedophile represent the same threat to society. Really?

[Walter Elliot]

"Really dumb to shoot at a fleeing bad guy. Even if you hit the intended target you could still be in a world of hurt." Protecting property with a firearm is, to my knowledge, limited to the state of Texas and it must be after sundown. Eight years is not excessive for this kind of crime. That woman left behind children and grand children, perhaps a husband and siblings.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Even in TX, the situation you mention is more nuanced.

As I walk out of WalMart, I realize that I did not take that bottle of vitamins out of my cart to pay for it. The check out person didn't notice it. My, my - what a mistake I muse as my last thought as the security guard unleashes a hail of 38 SPL RNL from his SW Model 10 into my cranium.

[44 AMP]

The idea that it is morally acceptable to kill someone "taking your stuff" comes down to us from the distant past. A time when someone taking your "Stuff" could mean you and your family starved to death.

A time before insurance companies, FDIC and a social safety net. A time when there was no one, and nothing to help you survive, beyond family, friends, and the church's charity. When someone stole your stock, took your harvest, or the horse you needed to get that harvest, it was literally a death sentence to you and yours.

Therefore, killing the thieves was morally the right thing to do. What they did resulted in a death threat (slow, through starvation) to your family, so yes, they deserved what they got.

This situation still existed in our old west, to a degree, and was the recognized order of things, as they always had been. We hung horse thieves and cattle rustlers. We shot the bank robbers as they rode out of town with our money.

Why do you think ordinary citizens grabbed their guns and joined the posse going after the bank robbers?? Sure, it was the right thing to do, but why did they do it, when today most people wouldn't?

Because it was THEIR money that got stolen from the bank, and the ONLY way of having any hope of getting it back was to take it back from the people who stole it.

This is NOT the case today. Insurance, either private or government means there is a way of getting mere property (and money is just property) back. Society expects you to accept the loss, and file an insurance claim, rather than use deadly force to defend mere property.

Chasing a car thief gun blazing, hitting at least two neighborhood homes, and killing a grandma asleep in her house is simply totally wrong behavior. It is, however, the kind of thing we see "heroes" on TV do almost every night (minus they killing grandma part).

I can understand a guy, amped up by seeing his jeep taken, NOT THINKING beyond the immediate moment, doing what TV has "trained" him to do.

I can understand it. I cannot condone it, nor his poor marksmanship, which caused the death of an innocent individual.

The jeep can be replaced, Grandma cannot. 8 years may seem stiff, or not nearly enough, depending on your point of view.