Looks like the car owner forgot one of the cardinal rules of armed confrontations:

"Dead men file no lawsuits."

 

I wonder if the cops found that "toy" gun one of the guys pointed at him somehwhere tossed in the woods nearby? I doubt the shooter gets charged. One thing I have found is that the shooter doesn't always get charged in cases like this and the shot criminals don't always sue......in fact it's very rare that they sue.

 

He should be awarded a medal and a lifetime supply of buckshot so the next thug will no longer be able to suck air.

 

From what I read on the incident online I doubt the kid will be charged. If he would have been shooting at them with buckshot instead of birdshot it might have been a different ending.

 

He's going to jail and his family will be paying for the thieves house and cars for the rest of their lives.

Don't you all know that criminals are the real victims and we don't have the right to prevent them from bettering their position in life?

 

He's going to jail and his family will be paying for the thieves house and cars for the rest of their lives.

Don't you all know that criminals are the real victims and we don't have the right to prevent them from bettering their position in life?

As Joe Simon said......."It be's that way sometimes"

 

I suspect the guy who did the shooting is in big trouble. He used lethal force in a situation that the law said wasn't justified. That's a bad shoot. Had the perp done something to threaten him it might have been different.

If I did do something that stupid, I hope I'd have the presence of mind to claim the guy had a weapon, which they clearly discard in their getaway...

 

I suspect the guy who did the shooting is in big trouble. He used lethal force in a situation that the law said wasn't justified. That's a bad shoot. Had the perp done something to threaten him it might have been different.

If I did do something that stupid, I hope I'd have the presence of mind to claim the guy had a weapon, which they clearly discard in their getaway...

I don't read it that way....there was a confrontation...one that may have put him in fear for his life...if so, he is justified...

 

I don't read it that way....there was a confrontation...one that may have put him in fear for his life...if so, he is justified...

Absolutely. "Confrontation" on private property can cover a wide range of scenarios. None of us have enough information to even guess what transpired.

 

I don't read it that way....there was a confrontation...one that may have put him in fear for his life...if so, he is justified...

yup, people that are already in the process of committing a felony are a danger to commit others... especially to get away...

plus 2 on 1 is a disparity of force, easy to justify a lethal response...

 

I think NC's laws say you have an obligation to withdraw, and to avoid a confrontation if you're armed, if at all possible, so it may not be as clear cut as you guys think. Particularly if the others weren't armed.

I'm not really trying to disagree, here, but my reading of the law and the stuff I learned in the concealed carry course (this wasn't concealed carry, but it was the use of lethal force) makes it much less than crystal clear.

I hope you guys are right -- but I think he stepped in the stinky stuff when he fired the weapon AT the guys who were trying to steal stuff.

I think the law enforcement people could make it easy on him, or difficult -- and it's kind of up to them.

 

yup, people that are already in the process of committing a felony are a danger to commit others... especially to get away...

plus 2 on 1 is a disparity of force, easy to justify a lethal response...

Not according to NC law. The use of deadly force is only authorized in 3 specific scenarios - none of which appear to be the case here.

In any other case outside those three it is abundantly clear that NC expects you to retreat and try to get out of the situation. Walking into the situation with a shotgun is NOT showing you intended to retreat.

I don't think it is right - but that is the way the NC laws are written. Catching guys breaking into your car and then pleading a "reasonable man" standard is a stretch since he will be seen as the aggressor since he entered the situation with the gun before he could establish that the criminals posed a threat.

Oh and breaking into a car isn't a felony.

 

I think the law enforcement people could make it easy on him, or difficult -- and it's kind of up to them.

The LE and DA can help him from the criminal side of things but that does nothing for him on the civil side. Regardless of whether or not he is charged, the criminals' families will own this guy for the rest of his life.

 

I thought a person did not have to back down on their own property? I could be mistaken, but thats what I thought. I bet the guy gives up breaking in cars, which in turn does us all a favor.

 

They got less than they deserved.

I know how the law is stated and it's a crock of sh*t. It promotes criminal activity period.. A good car theif/ or someone stealing your stereo, gun whatever will be done and gone well before the police show up. They're gone with your property and there's little you can do about it. He's lucky he actually caught the guys in progress. You can always argue the point about their next move... larceny of property over a certain $$ is a felony and so is car theft... which could be in the progress of a felony act.

I hope there will be a day in the near future where all states can use deadly force to protect theft/damage of property..... Don't mess with my sh*t and you won't get shot.

I've worked for every little bit I own, and I don't want to let somebody have it.

 

Retreat is not required if you are on your own property. That is one of the exceptions to the Duty to Retreat. That being said retreat is a good option if it can be done safely.

Also, what were they using to attempt to break into the vehicle in question? If they had anything that could be used to beat, stab or inflict serious injury upon the owner then they could be considered armed assailants.

 

Personally, I think he should be able to do that. The letter of the law on this is not so forgiving. Hope he gets a "friendly" DA. Not sure of that in Charlotte though. Of Course the way they treat the real criminals maybe he will? From what I see there is no duty to retreat from inside your home. Deadly force to protect property is generally a no no. That said, if I heard something outside my home and go outside to check I will be armed. If the theif is too, then we have a serious situation. I would not retreat back inside my house without defending myself first. At that point it changes from a property issue to a reasonable suspicion of serious injury or death issue. Hopefully the details show he was armed checking on the situation and had to defend himself not his property.

14‑51.1. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.

(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.

(b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.

(c) This section is not intended to repeal, expand, or limit any other defense that may exist under the common law. (1993 (Reg. Sess., 1994), c. 673, s. 1.)

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-51.1.html

 

14‑51.1. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.

(a) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence is justified in using any degree of force that the occupant reasonably believes is necessary, including deadly force, against an intruder to prevent a forcible entry into the home or residence or to terminate the intruder's unlawful entry (i) if the occupant reasonably apprehends that the intruder may kill or inflict serious bodily harm to the occupant or others in the home or residence, or (ii) if the occupant reasonably believes that the intruder intends to commit a felony in the home or residence.

(b) A lawful occupant within a home or other place of residence does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section.

(c) This section is not intended to repeal, expand, or limit any other defense that may exist under the common law. (1993 (Reg. Sess., 1994), c. 673, s. 1.)

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/BySection/Chapter_14/GS_14-51.1.html

That covers forcible entry into your home. I see no indication that this guy's car was in his living room. The law clearly doesn't cover us outside the walls of our house - meaning your yard and driveway are NOT part of that provision.

 

Retreat is not required if you are on your own property. That is one of the exceptions to the Duty to Retreat. That being said retreat is a good option if it can be done safely.

Also, what were they using to attempt to break into the vehicle in question? If they had anything that could be used to beat, stab or inflict serious injury upon the owner then they could be considered armed assailants.

that is a very good point...

 

- meaning your yard and driveway are NOT part of that provision.

That's my point. The duty to retreat came up on private property. As far as I know this is the only mention of duty to retreat on your property. That may be something that causes this guy some problems. If I am missing another statute please point me in that direction. I like to have the GS info when talking about what the law says.

 

In NC, you cannot shoot someone to prevent them from stealing your property. You also, may not shoot them afterwards.

Now this all goes out the window if you are in fear for your life.

 

Trust me....this will not go to court and the guy won't get sued.

 

If he gets charged or not probably depends on his statements to police on the event and less on what actually happened.

If someone is breaking into my car parked outside at night I can't take out my shotgun and go outside to shoot them.

or

What I can do if I hear a noise outside and take my shotgun out to investigate (for personal safety). If I happen to confront someone trying to break into my car at that time, maybe I am in fear for my life. They are probably armed with something to break into the car. Maybe they are not, maybe he dropped it while retreating, or maybe they verbally claim to have weapon and it looks like they are going for their pocket.

I bet he doesn't get charged.

 

i was taught in my CCW class that you can use deadly force to prevent someone from entering your house, but once they are IN your house, the rules change. This applies to your house, not your property. Once inside, force can legally only be met with equal force. I know it sounds stupid, but that's the way it reads. In this case, he would need to have a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm to meet the letter of the law in using deadly force. IMHO, I'd stay in the house and call the LEO's. I'm not gonna kill someone over my car.

 

i was taught in my CCW class ... <snip>

CCW has nothing to do with events that transpire on or in your property.