Man on Trial for Shooting Car Thief

[SecularMotion]

A Washington man is on trial this morning, accused of first-degree manslaughter for gunning down a man who was stealing his SUV.

The shooting happened on March 25, 2013. Gail Gerlach, 56, walked outside his Spokane home to see Brendon Kaluza-Graham driving off in his SUV, so he fired a single shot from his 9mm semiautomatic from about 60 feet away.

The bullet went through the rear window and headrest, hitting Kaluza-Graham’s spine at the base of the skull and killing him almost instantly. Gerlach has a permit for the weapon.

Gerlach claims that he thought he saw Kaluza-Graham pointing a gun at him and believed his life was in danger.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/man-trial-shooting-car-thief/story?id=23187445

[Duckhunter935]

1. should not have stolen the car

60 foot, good shot.

[Lochloosa]

8. Bullshit. A car is worth someone else's life? Really?

I hope he gets many years to think about that.

[Duckhunter935]

9. no

but I am 100% sure he would not be dead now if he had not stolen the guys car. The car owner is going to trial and will be judged by his peers and will live with this for the rest of his life.

[SQUEE]

12. the obvious answer being...The thief believed his life was worth less

but, I choose to not let you frame this argument in terms of value, it's a sadly materialistic way to view life.

[Lochloosa]

15. "I choose to not let you frame this argument in terms of value"

I chose to frame this in terms of the value of someones life. Hardly materialistic.

[SQUEE]

24. Value...

It's truly a loaded word, it is often used in ways implying it is fluid, and that it has variables.

[Eleanors38]

16. Not to me, but the deceased seemed to think so.

Guns can be used for self-defense, but I wouldn't have shot at the thief as the info so far does not indicate anyone being threatened by the deceased. The defendant will have difficulty convincing a jury he was threatened.

[Logical]

29. Wow, you are one of the gun owners who actually is part of the problem. Amazing. nt

[ManiacJoe]

30. You seem to be jumping to conclusions.

He said, "Good shot", not "Good shoot". It is a note about the marksmanship, not the appropriateness of the shot.

[Duckhunter935]

33. You are correct

I hope he is held accountable as I do not think shooting him was lawful. If the guy had not stolen the car I am sure he would be alive now. 60ft from a handgun is a very good shot indeed if true.

[Brown Coat]

32. I'm glad that this criminal will no longer be able to prey upon...

or harm anymore innocent people. He is responcible for what happened he alone is responcible for getting shot.

[ManiacJoe]

2. WA state self defense laws do not support his actions.

Gerlach was not in danger as Graham drove off in the SUV. WA does not allow for lethal force in the defense of property.

One does need to recognize the marksmanship skills.

One cannot rule out jury nullification in this case.

[nomorenomore08]

4. Not to mention, if he *wasn't* such a good marksman he could've easily hit a bystander. n/t

[Sancho]

3. He should be on trial!

We have crazy laws in Florida, but I don't think you should be shooting anyone or anybody over property. The jury may believe him, but I wouldn't.

I hate all this wild-west gun play.

[gejohnston]

11. Washington is actually the same as Florida

in that they both are SYG, (of which Florida was neither the first or unique). All Florida and Georgia did was codify existing common law in those states. The only state that I know of that allows defense of property is Texas.
If you think Florida's SYG is crazy, try California's.
Actually the Wild West was never that wild. Dueling in the streets happened only in the movies, and SYG began in California in 1895.

[Jenoch]

19. In Minnesota it is legal to use a weapon to stop a felony.

The catch is, you also have to be threatened with death or great bodily harm at the same time so it would not apply in this situation.

Right now in Minnesota we have a case in which a homeowner shot and killed two teens who broke into his house on Thanksgiving Day 2012. The problem for the homeowner is that after he shot the teens, he did a coup de grâce on each of them. Had he shot them just once each, called 911 and rendered aid he would not be on trial for first degree murder.

[Flatulo]

25. Christ, that is stone cold. That guy must have ice water running through his veins.

He needs to be kept away from other people.

[Jenoch]

21. "He should be on trial!"

Read the link on the OP. The guy IS on trial.

[nomorenomore08]

7. So we've heard from the wannabe tough guys now...

Seriously, just because a guy's a scumbag doesn't mean one can shoot him the back.

[Flatulo]

6. As much as I detest car thieves, there is no justification to fire at a vehicle in which the thief

is fleeing. This guy was either a dead shot, or he got lucky, but at sixty feet, he could have missed by a wide margin and picked off a bystander.

[pipoman]

10. I agree, shooting at a moving car is dumb

And killing someone who is fleeing should be criminal, even if they are fleeing in a stolen car.

[Electric Monk]

20. Done all the time in movies and TV. Shooter guy probably 'learned' it was ok there. nt

[pipoman]

22. Probably

I was once in a shooting class for law enforcement and other legal professions where the object was to shoot the tire of a moving vehicle. One by one we all attempted. Nobody hit a tire the first round. The instructor hit it on the 3rd try by skipping it off the concrete. The point of the exercise was part of the larger point ...never shoot at a moving vehicle. ..

[Historic NY]

27. Unless its running you down...

[pipoman]

31. Exactly. ..I hesitate to mention that. ..

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

23. If so, it's unlikely that...

..."being stupid" will be banned.

[SQUEE]

13. Agreed, the obvious repurcussion to hitting the objective is as dangerous, or moreso.

A dead hand at the wheel of an SUV is a bad thing.

[Eleanors38]

14. I agree. The Defendant will have to make a good case of self-defense

because it doesn't look like it from here. Firearms are for self-defense or the defense of others in extremis.

[rrneck]

17. Sometimes lucky shots aren't so lucky. nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

18. Not justified, IMO.

Although I obviously don't have nearly enough detail to be certain, this looks like a very bad shoot. Given the angle from which the thief was struck, it seems like the thief was moving more-or-less away from the shooter. That makes any claim of self-defense dubious at best. Absent the need for self-defense, using deadly force is illegal and in my view unethical.

[Flatulo]

26. I've taken quite a few people for their first handgun practice shoot back in the day. As I recall,

not one of them could hit a paper target at even 25' with any repeatability, and that was with a relatively mild 9mmP round. I would not even put a magnum in their hands.

People don't realize that you have to shoot tens of thousands of rounds to reach any kind of decent proficiency, unless you've been born gifted.

Shooting a handgun is very challenging, which is part of the reason I enjoyed the activity.