Burglar shot and killed while escaping ruled justifiable.

[GreenStormCloud]

Back in May, in Walla Walla, WA, at the New York store, a burglar broke into the store at about 2:30 AM, stold some belts and buckles. The noise awaken John Saul, 63, who lived in back of the store. He grabbed his shotgun to check out the noise. The burglar ran from the store with the loot, with Mr. Saul in chase. Once outside the store Saul opened fire on the burglar, Cesar Chavira, 22, at a range of about 120 feet, firing five shots of #4 buckshot. Fifty pellets hit Chavira, who died on the scene.

Even I consider this to be excessive and feel that charges for at least manslaughter would be appropriate. Chavira was, in my opinion, cleary not a threat to Saul.

But the legal system in Washington has ruled in a Coroner's Inquest, 4-2, that the shooting was justifiable.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/No-charge-in-fatal-Walla-Walla-store-shooting-3784885.php
SNIP
The investigation by sheriff's Det. Sgt. Gary Bolster showed that Saul fired his 12-gauge shotgun five times at a distance between 120 and 155 feet, striking Chavira in the back with nearly 50 pellets. Chavira was in the street outside the store when Saul fired.

In a letter stating his decision not to prosecute, Nagle stated the Washington state Legislature and Supreme Court have made it clear that a person should not be charged with murder or manslaughter "when they are defending themselves, their property, or against a felony, unless the prosecution has sufficient evidence to prove the absence of any of the defenses to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt."

SNIP

I just can't see killing someone who is not a threat to me over some belts and buckles.

[Hoyt]

1. I agree with you completely. Shooting someone at 120+ feet over belts and buckles is offensive to

to society.

This is another area, where people don't have to do what the law allows. My guess is, the shooter went to some so-called "self-defense" training where the instructor spent most of their time clarifying to attendees when they could legally shoot someone in back at a distance. Our "hero' took it to heart and will probably vote for Romney/Ryan. I also think the prosecutor needs to be removed from office.

Enjoy this unusual day.

[Reasonable_Argument]

3. Please document

What you're basing your opinions on firearms classes on.

[Hoyt]

8. Comments and posts made here by so-called law-abiding gun owners. Do you have something to

contradict my opinion?

By the way, what is your opinion about shooting unarmed people, probably in back since they were fleeing, at 120 feet with shotgun blasts -- is that part of your worshiped 2nd Amendment rights?

[Reasonable_Argument]

17. I've taken

NRA firearms classes and plan to attend another in the near future. I've read the books from people like Massad Ayoob who founded the LFI (now MAG). So yes, I do know what I'm talking about. You on the other hand, do not.

[Hoyt]

20. Your esteemed instructors don't spend a lot of time going over SYG and other laws to help you decide

when you can shoot unarmed people in the back.

I'm sorry, I know for a fact this is what they do -- Massad Ayoob too as he counts his ill-gotten gains/profits from pandering to those who arm up to shoot citizens without benefit of a trial.

[Reasonable_Argument]

23. So then...

You feel there's never a right to use deadly force?

[X_Digger]

40. He's an ex-robber. Of course he doesn't feel it's ever right.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=45338

As a former robber, I locked the door to keep people out, especially police.

[ManiacJoe]

30. Having taken a class from Ayoob,

I can easily state the fact that you have no clue as to what you are talking about.

The vast majority of the class time is spent going over the laws specifically to know about when you can and cannot legally shoot someone, then followed by discussions about whether legally shooting them is the better tactical solution or not. This also applies to every other self-defense class I have taken taught by others.

[rDigital]

31. As an instructor, I can tell you know not of what you speak. SYG AND Castle Doctrine

are an important part of any SD class.

[Lurks Often]

61. You're showing your usual ignorance and

merely reinforcing why you have no credibility.

I think that the real reason you hate guns is that they forced you to get a real job and work for a living

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=45338

[ProgressiveProfessor]

9. More unsubstantiated BS from you

No qualified firearms instructor teaches as you have claimed here and elsewhere

[Hoyt]

21. Sure they do, and the attendees eat it up. Look at the course descriptions and tell me they do

not cover laws such as SYG to help gun cultist know when they can shoot people in the back. And, I even bet they cover what to do when you report it so that you don't get in legal trouble.

[Reasonable_Argument]

22. You don't know wtf you're talking about nt

[spin]

33. Have you ever attented a class on concealed carry?

One class that I know of was run by a prosecuting attorney in St. Pete Florida. The students commented on how he would instruct them about the laws on self defense in Florida and also mention and if and when they screwed up he would be very happy to prosecute them.

The course description doesn't cover everything you learn in a class and that is true for all courses.

[Travis_0004]

29. My give a shit meter seems to be broken

He had 19 arrest, 6 felony convictions, including several assults. If there was anybody who didn't care about other people, it was Ceaser. All he had to do was not go out robbing people, and he would be alive today.

[HALO141]

53. + abunch

Would I have done the same?

Doubtful.

Do I have any sympathy for the turd?

Nope.

[Jenoch]

41. If there was even the slightest

hint that you COULD be right, I might agree with you. EXCEPT that there are no self-defense classes that involve guns in which anyone would be told it is ok to shoot someone in the situation described in the OP. Besides that, there is zero indication that this guy took ANY class, to learn about self-defense, or to learn how to cook for that matter.

[TPaine7]

43. Wow, for once i agree with Hoyt...

Shooting someone in the back at 120+ feet over trifling things like belts and buckles is offensive to society. It is morally indefensible. I don't care what the law allows or what the DA decided, it's ridiculous.

(Of course I disagree on the training issue and on removal of the DA if the law actually drove his decision, but I have to give credit where credit is due.)

[4th law of robotics]

46. Don't you have a conflict of interest here?

I mean, at some point you admitted to being an armed burglar did you not?

[GreenStormCloud]

49. Armed robber is what he posted. Not quite the same.

A burglar tries to avoid a confrontation. He tries to use stealth to steal.

A robber starts with a confrontation. A robber seeks to estrablish situation dominance over his victim, either by threats of force or by overpowering his victim to get what he wants.

[4th law of robotics]

67. I have used the terms interchangeably

I guess I have been mistaken.

Huh. Learn something every day.

[rl6214]

65. "My guess"

As usual, suffering from DKS.

[Gman]

2. In cases of self defense, I can be skeptical. However

I agree the guy had the right to use force to stop the guy from taking his stuff. What are you going to do? Let the guy go then call the police and wait for them to bring your stuff back? It doesn't happen. The burglar put himself in danger.

To me, being a liberal has it's limits. If someone is stealing your shit, it's bullshit to say you have to be passive about it. If you have to shoot 'em, so be it. If it were me, I'd shoot to wound the guy and shoot him in the ass or somehow disable him. But that's me.The burglar is not the victim here.

[Hoyt]

11. Shooting them in back fleeing at 30+ yards is OK with you? I guess greedy corporation, polluters,

banksters, etc., are OK with you too since they are just getting what they consider their stuff?

[gejohnston]

16. how is this different than

shooting a fleeing 14 year old in the back with a machine gun? Oh yeah the robber's parents wasn't "those kind of people"

[HALO141]

24. It's my policy not to alert

but I'm having a hard time not doing it with this post. That shit's just downright offensive, hoyt.

[shadowrider]

68. Holy cow. Hoyt had a post hidden. I thought he was covered in more teflon than Gotti n/t

[HALO141]

69. Huh!

Wonder who did alert on it.

[shadowrider]

70. Don't know, but the fact 2 people voted to leave it is very telling n/t

[Starboard Tack]

26. If you think it's OK to shoot people in the back over stuff, you've passed any liberal limits

and any limits of human decency. You don't have to be passive about it. Feel free to chase the guy, grab you stuff, maybe even punch his lights out and hold him for the cops, but shoot him in the fucking back, gimme a break! If he points a gun at you, shoot him, but what kind of asshole would shoot someone in the back? What the hell is wrong with you?

[Missycim]

37. Maybe the person couldn't "chase him down" or

was not able to punch his lights out, to you the time (time I will never get back BTW) it took to earn the money to buy those things isnt important but trust me it is. I got an idea you can spread to ROBBERS is if you dont want to get shot dont STEAL.

[Starboard Tack]

44. Thanks for making it clear the value you place on human life.

[Missycim]

47. When you steal my stuff you are stealing more then things

you are stealing the time I invested in buying them, So you will be taking your chances.

[Starboard Tack]

52. I'll take a thief over a killer, any day.

Enjoy your "stuff"!

[Missycim]

54. I do, thanks very much :)

nt

[Kezzy604]

56. It isn't about "stuff."

It's about the time and resources that he has put into everything that is his. You can't take away someone's livelihood and expect them to willy nilly go down whimpering. Eventually you have to stand up for yourself and say enough. I can't attest as to what I would do but, it has to be hard watching the things you have worked so hard for just be carried off by some man who has found it so easy to steal from you with no remorse.

[Starboard Tack]

59. I agree. Still doesn't excuse killing.

Lots of other options are available.

[rrneck]

60. But if you kill him

you take away all the time he's ever had or will ever have. That's pretty punitive.

[Missycim]

62. Well he was the one to gamble that

time away for the chance of stealing others property.

[rrneck]

63. Do you kill people who cut you off in traffic?

At issue is not who started it, but the disparity of compensation. You spent a hundred hours to acquire a consumer product, and you demand an entire life in compensation.

If lethal force is an appropriate response for theft, should the penal code be changed to reflect that standard? Should the punishment for theft be the death penalty? Or should we simply hamstring his productivity and cut off a hand?

Granted, if he is stealing something upon which your survival depends, you might well be defending your life to stop him. And that's becoming more of a possibility in these troubled economic times. But then, those same economic conditions that might require you to need those goods to survive might push others to have to steal them for the same reason.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_dilemma

As it stands now, the vast majority of consumer goods that we own are not necessary for our survival. So how do you justify the legality of demanding a life for stealing them?

[Sick of the GOP]

66. +1

.

[gejohnston]

42. shooting someone in the back who is no threat to you

is always wrong.
I don't give a fuck if
it is some cop with a machine gun shooting a racist's kid
some guy with a shotgun shooting a fleeing robber
I don't give a fuck if the weapon is a gun, blowgun, bow, crossbow, or a fucking atlatal.

It is just fucking wrong.

[Starboard Tack]

45. Right on!

[Gman]

48. Doing what you need to do to keep someone from stealing your stuff

doesn't disqualify anyone from being a liberal. In many cases the world is short one more scumbucket.

[Starboard Tack]

50. Shooting someone in the back who is running away and presents no threat

disqualifies that person from being considered human, let alone liberal. Anyone who commits murder by cowardly shooting someone in the back is a "scumbucket", along with those who support such behavior.

[Politicalboi]

51. Shoot to wound

Then he would probably sue you and win. Who knows, this guy might have relatives who will do just that. Perhaps this guy was the bread winner and has a wife and kid. But he never should have shot him over property. Get camera's if your "stuff" is that priceless. He may now face to lose everything in a suit.

[Gman]

55. I've in Texas

The case will never see a courtroom.

[msongs]

4. exercising his 2A rights. He IS in the militia, correct? nt

[rrneck]

5. The jury was wrong. No threat-No shoot. nt

[Reasonable_Argument]

7. We can discuss

Whether or not deadly force is ever authorized to protect property, but in this case it seems they did follow the law.

[Hoyt]

12. NRA backed -- and paid for -- law.

[Reasonable_Argument]

15. Look

I'll be honest, this shooting seems a little "loose" to me. I don't exactly have a lot of sympathy for the burgler either to be honest. I'm just pointing out the law. Now is it ever justified to use deadly force to to protect propery? That could be an interesting discussion.

[rrneck]

14. Yes, it was legal. But it wasn't right.

I guess the jury felt like they had to follow the letter of the law. But there is a significant moral hazard attached to defending property with deadly force.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. While it may be legal, it certainly is questionable in my opinion.

A burglar off the property and in full retreat is no threat.

Number of shot and type of rounds is irrelevant in my judgement

[slackmaster]

10. Breaking that sentence down to its core, it says "Burglar ruled justifiable."

[Hoyt]

13. They said that about lynching back in the 40s/50s where I live too.

[slackmaster]

19. In the 1940s and 50s no newspaper editor would allow such garbage to be printed

And a writer who presented a draft with such a poorly written headline would be taken to the woodshed.

[GreenStormCloud]

35. Yeah, my grammar was rather poor with that sentence. N/T

[Starboard Tack]

27. Good post GSC. 5 in the back is murder in anyone's book

The DA needs to be fired.

[GreenStormCloud]

36. I think the DA may have been bound by the jury's decision. N/T

[COLGATE4]

28. Nagle and Walla Walla should be embarrassed to

have allowed this finding by the Coroner's Jury. What kind of society are we living in where a person loses his life because of a few belts and buckles, when there was no threat to the person doing the shooting?

[rDigital]

32. The moral of the story

is: Don't use deadly force against those that do not pose a deadly threat or to protect property.

Also, don't rob people. You may rob the wrong person someday.

[spin]

34. +1000 (n/t)

[Atypical Liberal]

38. I'm all for the use of deadly force to defend property.

If you want to risk your life to take my property, that's on you.

I'm glad there are states like Washington where you won't be prosecuted for protecting your property.

[ManiacJoe]

39. I would not try to read that much into this decision.

This jury decision seems to be abnormal for WA state, unless my memory is failing me.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

57. legally justifiable is not necessarily the morally right thing to do.

isn't this how the rich have justified the tax scale?

[rDigital]

58. Congratulations: You just won the thread! : ) +3 Points nt

[rl6214]

64. I agree with you here, should have just called the cops and dealt with it that way

He was no longer a threat and posed no threat to his ability to make a living either. It was just a couple of small items

[rDigital]

71. The moral of the story? Don't be a criminal, it's hazardous to your health. nt