Questionable shooting and a vague law
 

https://www.foxnews.com/us/carjacking-victim-arrested-after-shooting-boy-breaking-his-car-during-atlanta-confrontation

Hope there’s more to the story, because on the surface this is a load of crap. How is someone trying to carjack your car not a life threatening situation? Also I hate the use of the word “boy” to describe the carjacker, it makes the story sound like it was a little kid. As opposed to him likely being a 17 year old thug.

From the story, it wasn't a "carjacking" it was a guy confronting a kid breaking into his car. Wildly different from a "carjacking".

WHat a horribly written article (as so many are these days).
Right, there's a big difference between "carjacking" and "breaking into a car".

A carjacking implies that the guy was driving his car when the young man attempted to force him out of the car for the purpose of stealing the car. The article below reads more like the kid was breaking into the car for the purpose of either stealing the car or possibly to steal items out of the car.
The kid was shot in the foot. Also, the article doesn't say if the kid was 12 or 19 or what. I feel like the original article was written in a misleading manner to incite folks. I'd say it worked.

https://www.hereatlanta.com/atlanta-car-break-in-shooting/

I have arrived at a point in my life where I'd not want to live in certain places.

Since the sale of my last house and my ongoing quest to rid myself of the vast accumulation if excess stuff that I really never needed, some things have become more important to me. Try to take some of that and be prepared to get a case of lead poisoning.

It's all a matter of perspective.

As regards the law, I often think it fails us in that we can never realistically know the ins and outs of what is legal and what is not, so it does us a disservice. What's the remedy?

He should be allowed to shoot the punk again (not in the foot this time) just for GP.

Unless there’s some doubt that the kid actually broke into the vehicle, which doesn’ t seem to be the case, I don’t really see a problem.

If you make the consequences of an action severe enough you’ll stop most people from doing it. Sounds like a win to me.

Suppose the person(s) breaking in had a gun and you walked out there to check on your car, unarmed. What are you going to do? Say wait here, while I go get my gun? Better to be armed going out there.

The “kid” could be 6 feet tall and 250 pounds and a potential physical threat to the victim.

I would want a gun either way.

Per the article that I posted, it was a "juvenile" (which could be a 200#+ 17 year old) at 2am. There's no telling, when you go out and see someone breaking into your car at 2am, who they are, how old they are, what they are likely to do as a result of you interrupting them, or what, if any, weapon they are carrying.

I saw that movie. Didn't work out great for Ed Norton.

That said I've got no problem with it. Wouldn't do it myself for sure but would not send someone else to jail for it.

Before I shoot, and I would with zero hesitation (in some circumstances), I would make sure it wasn't a drunk teen trying to get in the wrong house, or a "country club kid" out breaking into cars .... because they are 15 and stoopid... yes, I knew a few of them too :(.

More $$$ than morals or sense...

There are times looking back ... I am SO glad I didn't have a gun handy...

Each situation is different.

Obviously my reading comprehension wasn’t the best when I was reading that story.

Not your fault, the title was inflammatory and misleading.
I get the "I'd shoot him comments" but in most jurisdictions using potentially lethal force to protect property isn't legal.

Uhhhhh I would never... I thought I was being clever, teaching people lessons about locking their cars on public lots, rearranging things but never damaging or taking anything.It was tremendously stupid, because most kids under 18 are just that: tremendously stupid. Me especially, it took a long time for me to mature.

Obviously it wouldn't be a bad idea to have a gun when confronting someone in a situation like this, but brandishing it and shooting it should be off base unless things escalate. That's just good sense.

A little different perspective...

Nobody, but nobody is stupid enough to mess with a vehicle parked in front of, say, a Hells Angels clubhouse. We need to reintroduce that same level of fear and trepidation (the HA refer to it as "respect", and they might not be wrong) across our society as a whole.

As it currently stands, much of the abberant behavior we see is emboldened by the notion that, even if caught, "they can't do anything". Anything from stupid kid pranks all the way up to some very serious crime. Well, I'm sorry, but I firmly believe that the fate of these perpetrators needs to be left entirely in the hands and to the judgement of the person whom they are affecting when that person catches them in the act. No second guessing after the fact by unaffected third parties. If the perpetrator gets away then, by all means, it becomes our "authorities" responsibility to to apprehend them (we don't get to go hunt them down after the fact), but in the moment, our decision stands and cannot be questioned after the fact. Taking such an approach would go a long ways towards quelling this sort of penny ante nonsense.

I am often guided by one principle. What would my dog do?

Dogs are seldom wrong.

Be like a dog.

Hanging horse thieves would solve a lot of issues.

.

The key word here is “forcible felony “. This is a common bar to reach across a lot of states.


Trying to enter a car or a home (they’re seen the same under the law here) would be seen as a forcible felony. Sure, there’s some genuine constraints as we all have walked to the wrong car before in the car park.

Jeff, letting the victims of rime deal with the perpetrators sounds great in theory, but there are those who pull the trigger first without asking questions. I have in mind a couple of instances where young people went to a residence in error and were shot dead. Not everyone is capable or qualified to make correct decisions.

Preaching to the choir.

Note my comments in your "e-bike" thread about sending a message to those who violate the law.

1st offense.....bike is taken, fines of $5K or more. And for 2nd offense - all of that plus heftier fines and jail.

And at some point - if the kids are still living at home, the parents get dinged with a fine.
----------

Mom and Dad both had belts and would use them on us if warranted. Mom's was a wide one that was draped over the kitchen cart handle. Dad wore his - those thin ones they wore back in the 60's.

We were taught the difference between right and wrong. Didn't stop us from messing up from time to time. We weren't robots...lol.

"Wait until your father gets home." :eek: