Defending the Truth

highway80west · 07-16-2007, 10:51 AM

Shots in the dark | The San Diego Union-Tribune

Burglars rip off the store, yet the store owner shoots them during a chase.

It is one thing to shoot someone while trying to defend your property onsite. However, I'm afraid that the store owner, who shot the burglars may be in for some legal problems since the shooting occurred well away from the store, and may not be seen as defending the property.

This is where I have problems with the legal system. I feel badly for the store owners who keep getting ripped off. Since there was not a sheriff substation for 20 miles, what is the law and courts going to when a man tries to defend his store and go chase after the thieves?

What would you say?

CrazyFlamingos · 07-16-2007, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highway80west

Shots in the dark | The San Diego Union-Tribune

Quote:

While recounting the events of March 6, Drake grew silent several times to keep himself from crying.

Nonetheless, when asked whether he might do anything differently, Drake replied, “If my wife and I were ever threatened, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot again.”

His mistake -- or crime, if you want to call it that -- was not shooting when he felt endangered but giving chase in the first place.

Even then, if he had only followed long enough to get a good description and tag number, it would have been understandable.

But, for goodness sakes, call the cops! The way he handled it was vigilantism and only served to put the store owner and his wife (and the burglers) in more danger than necessary.

highway80west · 07-16-2007, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyFlamingos

His mistake -- or crime, if you want to call it that -- was not shooting when he felt endangered but giving chase in the first place.

Even then, if he had only followed long enough to get a good description and tag number, it would have been understandable.

But, for goodness sakes, call the cops! The way he handled it was vigilantism and only served to put the store owner and his wife (and the burglers) in more danger than necessary.

Agreed, CF. Even if he did call the sheriff, they were about 20 miles away. So he took it upon himself to give chase. I don't know if the perps will bring forth a lawsuit, even though they are in jail for burglary.

Now that the store owner has bars on the windows, and the door, it is more burglar-proof. But a determined burglar would try and see what happens.

sgtdmski · 08-09-2007, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CrazyFlamingos

His mistake -- or crime, if you want to call it that -- was not shooting when he felt endangered but giving chase in the first place.

Even then, if he had only followed long enough to get a good description and tag number, it would have been understandable.

But, for goodness sakes, call the cops! The way he handled it was vigilantism and only served to put the store owner and his wife (and the burglers) in more danger than necessary.

Yes he followed the SUV. Did he intend to shoot, it would seem not. According to the very story you quoted:

Quote:

Finally, the two cars stopped and faced each other. According to Drake, his SUV became stuck on the shoulder of the road, where he had pulled over so the Toyota wouldn't hit him. At that point, he said, the driver of the Toyota began ramming the Drakes' front fender and driver-side door.

It was only at this point that he decided to shoot. The police even investigated his claim and the article states:

Quote:

Investigators interviewed the Drakes. They interviewed the two suspects who had been arrested. They didn't have the Toyota, but they examined the Drakes' Escalade. The driver's door and front bumper were damaged. Clearly, something had hit the car.

And yet no charges have been filed against the man.

Quote:

After reviewing the evidence, the San Diego County District Attorney's Office made a decision: The two suspects would be charged with burglary. The Drakes would be charged with nothing.

An individual has a right to protect self and property. 70 Cartons of cigarrettes plus several bottles of alchol, what perhaps some $5000 in investment or property. Not to mention the damage caused by the initial break into the store.

dmk

sgtdmski · 08-09-2007, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by highway80west

Agreed, CF. Even if he did call the sheriff, they were about 20 miles away. So he took it upon himself to give chase. I don't know if the perps will bring forth a lawsuit, even though they are in jail for burglary.

Now that the store owner has bars on the windows, and the door, it is more burglar-proof. But a determined burglar would try and see what happens.

Any Judge that would let a law suit go forward is ignoring one of the oldest and most basic of all legal precedents, a criminal cannot benefit from a crime (Riggs v. Palmer, 115 N.Y. 506 (1889)).

dmk

highway80west · 08-10-2007, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski

Any Judge that would let a law suit go forward is ignoring one of the oldest and most basic of all legal precedents, a criminal cannot benefit from a crime (Riggs v. Palmer, 115 N.Y. 506 (1889)).

dmk

Thank you for your insight.

When I got home yesterday, I tuned into the FOX News network, where there was Bill O'Reilly and the O'Reilly factor.

FOXNews.com - Stupid Judges... - Bill O’Reilly | The O’Reilly Factor

There was a case about a Maryland judge who was too soft on a criminal, thereby letting him off, almost scot-free. So what did the perp do? He goes to Florida, and murders a young woman.

The news people goes to the judge's home, and question him about his decision. He shuts the door on them.

So I hope a judge in the San Diego county shooting case will throw any potential lawsuit brought by the perps for burglarizing the store.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode