1911Forum banner

Car theft victims recover vehicle at gunpoint

5K views 110 replies 42 participants last post by  automagj 
#1 · (Edited)
Definitely NOT something I'd recommend doing, but honestly you can't blame this couple. They took a huge risk, but they'd have never gotten their property back otherwise. The only question is whether they'll be charged for taking the law into their own hands.

http://www.king5.com/news/local/everett/victim-pulls-gun-on-suspected-car-thief/446135185

http://www.kiro7.com/news/local/couple-finds-own-stolen-vehicle-holds-suspect-at-gunpoint/530233508

http://komonews.com/news/local/ever...-holds-suspects-at-gunpoint-til-police-arrive
 
#2 ·
wow. I'm with the cop in the video. Not a justified use of force, but certainly ballsy and effective! I wonder if a phone call &box in w/o the brandishing would have gotten it done? Sadly the D-bag their will likely say anything, and that may make things worse for the man/couple
 
#3 ·
Well here is what I think, if it's a normal vehicle and especially if a new one just let me take and and use insurance to get a new one. If it's something highly modified or old and uncommon or flat out near impossible to replace then I would not let it get away.

For example if someone tries to jack say.......a 2016 Nissan Altima from me I wouldn't much care. If someone tried to take my 2003 I would probably shoot them or it's tires sp they leave it and give up. I know that's not the "right" or even lawful thing but that is how it would play out.
 
#5 ·
A 'gray area'??? What have we come to???? I realize that we're supposed to be a softer, gentler, more helpless people who need the 'authorities' to solve all of our problems, but you know, sometimes you have to act. What are the odds that if they has sat back, like good little people, in their living room waiting, that the vehicle would have ever been found, much less returned in one piece? Never mind the criminals caught. 'Assault'???? Criminals were apprehended and the concern is the potential 'assault' of a group of worthless human fertilizer? Sure, go ahead, charge the couple, try them. I'd so love to be on that jury!!!!
 
#7 ·
Citizen's arrest with probable cause of a felony? Hmmm... Not a recommended activity, but I'm having a hard time seeing an issue. Doubtful you could get a jury to even consider a brandishing charge given the facts. Potential felons, fear of harm, looks like a righteous act. Not what I would do, but seems within the boundaries. Had there been gunfire....
 
#8 ·
The problem is what would've happened had the car thief been armed or else tried to resist and the victim shot him. The courts are pretty clear that a life cannot be taken over mere property. Having said that, I'm sure that enough people are sick and tired of these scumbags robbing and stealing everything in sight that hardly anyone would've shed a tear had he been shot and killed. At the same time the car owner is lucky he didn't receive a bullet as payment for his vehicle either. Everything ended well, but it just as easily might not have.
 
#19 ·
Had the thief been armed it would have turned into a justifiable SD situation.
You have every right to follow and or attempt recovery of your own stolen property. We could discuss the intelligence or stupidity of that back and forth. But you'd still be within your rights to do so. And roles are fluid not fixed.

Victim of car theft
Follower (aggressor in the minds of some)
And back to victim of a violent attack or gun muzzling by a car thief

If that thief muzzled you or threatened you with his gun you'd fully be justified in finishing him whether you followed him or not.

It's a shame they didn't just shoot em, feed em to the gators and go home.
 
#11 · (Edited)
A lot of great posts here.

Legal boundaries can ebb and flow over time, but at this juncture in U.S. history, there is a need to restore and refresh the rights of the righteous... and cease the PC inclinations of many (Obama-appointed Justices, mainstream media, etc) that seek to blame inanimate objects and society at large for conduct of thugs... instead of recognising the simple fact that thugs are thugs ... that's what they do.

But I guess the Dems desperately need those votes...
 
#13 ·
Block the stolen car. Call the cops. No need or justification for violence... IF the thieves get aggressive or threatening, then its a different story. But the BGs HAVE to initiate or create the threat for a violent response to be lawful or justified.
 
#14 · (Edited)
That seems fairly normal for Everett. Everett is still just a mill town posing as an upscale community. They cleaned up downtown a few years ago to attract some business but nobody I know goes there unless they have to. I was walking around downtown about 10 years ago and almost got myself in the middle of a bank robbery. A cop alerted me and I zipped on out of there. It's a pretty bizarre town with plenty of gang bangers and druggies.

If an insurance company gives you the market value for your vehicle, which they probably won't unless you sue them, all you will be able to do is buy another used one. Would you rather have the one you were driving or one someone else has been driving?

I'm not pulling a gun on someone unless I perceive them as a threat. If approached I would probably shoot the guy. Because I have a pretty good idea the guy is a car thief I would perceive that as a threat.

The police don't care about your property. If there is a gun involved they respond pronto. The gun adds some urgency to their response. Probably why the guy pulled the gun on the car thief. Can't say as I blame him one bit.
 
#16 ·
I'm not pulling a gun on someone unless I perceive them as a threat. If approached I would probably shoot the guy.
I agree with this. I think I would have boxed them in and told them to get out of my car. If they leave, fine. I give the police descriptions. If they want to escalate, I would defend myself.
 
#20 · (Edited)
I can understand their motivation, but I'm not shooting somebody to get my car back.

Setting up a situation where that becomes likely is, therefore, not something I would do. And if I decided to try it in a testosterone fueled moment, I pray I'd be smart enough not to bring my wife...

MAYBE I'd block the car and then abandon mine, retreating from them while (hopefully) detaining them long enough for the police to arrive.


Larry
 
#21 ·
I can understand their motivation, but I'm not shooting somebody to get my car back.

Setting up a situation where that becomes likely is, therefore, not something I would do. And if, in a testosterone fueled moment, I pray I'd be smart enough not to bring my wife...

MAYBE I'd block the car and then abandon mine, retreating from them while (hopefully) detaining them long enough for the police to arrive.


Larry
Not shooting them to get your car back. You'd be shooting them to prevent them from stealing somebody else's car later. :D
 
#24 ·
Its amazing how thin the line between law abiding citizen and felon is....

If you point a gun at someone, and cannot, in that instant, legally kill them- you're a criminal, no better than the one you think its your right to detain....
 
#29 ·
I'm an LEO as most of you know and if I were the prosecuting attorney, I would refuse to prosecute if it came to that.

I love it. :rofl:
So, as an officer of the law, and of the court, you would knowingly and willingly ignor the law...

Fortunately for you, civilian "authorities" generally can't be charged with dereliction of duty...

...and one wonders why theres no respect for the rule of law, or those that are supposed tobbe sworn to, duty bound, to enforce it...

The current sorry state of the justice system is the result of personally biased "discretion".... single individuals choosing which laws to enforce, and which to ignor at random. Its as corrupt a system as any in history.
 
#27 ·
Was this in the USA??

There's potentially laws that were broken. Potentially brandishing a weapon inside city limits, it could escalate all the way up to assault. It depends on what's said, how the weapon was used, what was implied – it's really a gray area,” Snell said.

As for whether charges could be filed, that will depend on whether the suspected car thief makes a complaint in this case.
What a crock... Police confront felons with guns drawn all the time and it's SOP. I would have done it differently but that quote by the cop is crap. If the car thief can press charges on the car"s owner, than he should be able to do the same on the cops arresting him.

Either scenario would be absolutely ludicrous!
 
#31 ·
What a crock... Police confront felons with guns drawn all the time and it's SOP. I would have done it differently but that quote by the cop is crap. If the car thief can press charges on the car"s owner, than he should be able to do the same on the cops arresting him.

Either scenario would be absolutely ludicrous!
Private citizens are NOT, NOT,and in case it hasn't sunk in, NOT sworn, commissioned LEOs functioning under the authority and color of law....

If memory serves (and its been a while) , 2 components are REQUIRED in WA to affect a "citizens arrest": the base crime (the theft of the vehicle, in this case) MUST be commited in the PRESENCE of the citizen AND the crime MUST constitute a breach of peace- present a physical risk or threat to the public... neither of these mandatory conditions were met. The "good guy" threatened deadly force against someone who presented or demonstrated NO threat of violence against anyone...

For all the "good guy" actually KNEW, the people in the vehicle could have bought it used the day prior, and not been aware of its statues... he simply ASSUMED, by correlation, that the individual in possession was the thief- whatever was determined in hindsight is irrelevant...

We either live in a society of law, or anarchy - there is no middle ground.
 
#28 ·
I understand why they did it.

However, if this had been North Philly, South Chicago, East LA, etc. the thiefs would have opened up with a LOT of gunfire and killed the couple rather than get caught.

Or if the thief had gotten out of the car and rushed the guy he would be screwed. If he doesnt fire, hes getting a beat down. If he does fire he would be facing manslaughter charges. Car isnt worth that much.
 
#32 ·
For all the "good guy" actually KNEW, the people in the vehicle could have bought it used the day prior, and not been aware of its statues... he simply ASSUMED, by correlation, that the individual in possession was the thief- whatever was determined in hindsight is irrelevant...

Who is stupid enough to pay cash for a car without a title transfer? In this state the car can't be legally registered in your name without the title being transferred. If the car is stolen obviously the thief isn't going to have a title to transfer ownership. Generally what happens is a stolen car is stripped of parts and the parts are sold.

I'd bet whoever was in that car stole it or knew the person who did. Pretty simple deduction on the owner's part.
 
#33 ·
Who is stupid enough to pay cash for a car without a title transfer? In this state the car can't be legally registered in your name without the title being transferred. If the car is stolen obviously the thief isn't going to have a title. Generally what happens is a stolen car is stripped of parts and the parts are sold.

I'd bet whoever was in that car stole it or knew the person who did. Pretty simple deduction on the owner's part.
While not a difficult deduction, there ARE various other premutations of events that result in an innocent person having that car at that moment in time.

Regardless, NOTHING, at the moment the event occured, warranted the use, and by default, the threat, of deadly force...
 
#39 ·
Settle down, gentlemen...





Stealing is morally wrong, but the way our laws are set up if innocent life isn't in imminent danger then it's the responsibility of the police to apprehend and arrest the crooks, not yours. A gun is for saving yourself from death or grave bodily harm if attacked, not threatening someone into giving your stuff back.

As I said, this couple is lucky nothing bad happened and it will be interesting to see if our liberal-leaning western WA courts let them off the hook or not. The authorities may decide not to file charges but the scumbag could possibly choose to press charges for assault. The key thing here is whether or not someone can do that if they are in the commission of a crime (knowingly possessing stolen property). I would assume not, but remember this is the Seattle area we're talking about.
 
#37 ·
In Western Washington state, it may be bad for the victim. The liberals sure like to take care of their criminals. They may charge the victim in this case. Hopefully not. But yeah all sorts of things could have gone wrong. If it was possible it may have been best to block the SUV in, take the keys and jump out of the car boxing it in,and run off for a safe distance away and wait for the police to show up. Of course the police might take hours though. But with the SUV blocked in the thieves would have to abandon it.

Usually stolen Land Cruisers wind up on a ship to Africa. They love getting fancy cars to show off there.
I am surprised the thieves were brazen enough to cruise around in it. But it is a liberal area there.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top