OK: Thief Slanders Homeowner who Shot Car Burglar

Gun Watch ^ | 26 October, 2013 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

This would be a fairly common "homeowner defends life and property" story, but it has a couple of interesting twists.

John Becker was watching TV, saw the dome light on his truck go on, and took his shotgun to investigate.  The car burglar refused to obey commands, kept coming at him, and reached into his pocket.

This is where it gets interesting.   As is common in deadly force situations, time seems to slow for John.  The phenomena is called tachypsychia.   In John's words, from newson6.com,

"It happens fast, but to me its like things just slow-motioned," Becker said. "For some reason, something told me to lower my gun and shoot him in the leg. And he's lucky he's got that."

It is easy to criticise these decisions when you are in a comfortable chair without a deadly threat facing you.   I respect John's decision.   Maybe God was giving John a message.   In any case, the message is one of the  things that makes this case stand out.   What happens later is also interesting.

When the police arrive, they find a knife in the pocket that the criminal was reaching into, and John's personal effects on the criminal's person.  The police do not release John's name.   An article is published by a local station, and the comments show overwhelming support for John's actions.   This is a very common reaction.

But then, a commenter, Sasha Ayala, accuses John of being a felon and that he and his wife have warrants!

Then another commenter states that Sasha Ayala was caught stealing from  John, and has been charged with felonies five times and misdemeanors four times.   Sasha is told that she is living in "a glass house" and she should not throw rocks.    Sasha is asked if her employer knows that she is a convicted felon.

Now John comes on line.  He reveals that he tried to render aid after he shot the criminal, and says that he is glad that he did not kill him.    This sort of statement would have been common before 1940, but in today's litigious society, where the old media often excoriate people such as John, I do not recommend it.  Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law.

The comments continue to be favourable to John, but many wish he had aimed higher.

A prime lesson form this incident is the observation that criminals lie.   They will lie to attempt to gain revenge on someone who stopped them from completing their criminal acts.   They will do this when the only thing to be gained is harm to the person who stopped them.

This is often difficult for ordinary people, who do not lie as a matter of course, to understand.   It is one of the reasons that Arizona passed its "Defensive Display" law, which makes it legal for people who carry guns to let people know that they are armed, without worrying about being charged with aggravated assault simply for stopping an attack.  This was documented in Arizona in one of the first cases where a concealed weapon permit holder defended himself by merely displaying his firearm.  He was accused of aggravated assault, and was walking into the courthouse for the trial, when his defence attorney was told of a 911 call that collaborated his story.  The charges against him were then dropped.

He had been put through months of uncertainty and legal maneuvering because of the lying, vengeful people that he had prevented from carrying out their attack on him.

Massad Ayoob noted decades ago, that a common story from muggers who were shot, was that the person who shot them demanded homosexual favors from  them, and when they pulled out a knife to defend themselves, their (falsely accused) attacker pulled a gun and shot them. 

Remember, criminals lie.   They do it reflexively, so expect it and prepare for it.

©2013 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

[marktwain]

Criminals lie. Expect them to accuse *you*.

[Nervous Tick]

>> Criminals lie. Expect them to accuse *you*.

Unless they’re pushing up daisies. Then they don’t have much of anything to say.

[Responsibility2nd]

No good deed goes unpunished.

The moral of this storys is next time... Shoot - shovel - shut up.

[ZirconEncrustedTweezers]

All the more reason to shoot to kill.

[Darteaus94025]

“Criminals lie.”

Well, that does explain Obama’s “statements”.

[wideawake]

Shoot - shovel - shut up

Terrible, terrible advice.

The real moral is to aim for center mass and let the chips fall where they may.

[Da Coyote]

“Criminals lie. Expect them to accuse *you*. “

Hmmm, the Obamadork lies (100% of the time).

He also accuses everyone else of everything. (”The buck never even got here.”)

Could it be that the Obamadork is a criminal?

Could it be that a bear takes bodacious Obamas in the woods?

[longfellow]

Dumb ass, you shoot to kill. Didn’t he learn from Bernie Goetz that they come back and sue you.

[Smokin' Joe]

Criminals lie. Expect them to accuse *you*.

Oh. Like Liberals...

[SatinDoll]

Sounds exactly like BHO2, which is a very sad commentary on a man who’s supposed to be our President.

[Dr. Sivana]

Dumb ass, you shoot to kill. Didn’t he learn from Bernie Goetz that they come back and sue you.

Maybe he decided that he would rather risk litigation than be responsible for killing another human being. He gets to live his own life.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Frivolous litigation changes things.

I remember a story from Brazil, where over time, it was discovered if there was a bus- or truck-pedestrian accident, if the pedestrian was killed, the recovery by their family in a lawsuit was reasonable. But if the pedestrian was injured, the recovery was very large, even windfall.

When the word got out to the public about this, it resulted in a big jump in non-fatal bus-pedestrian accidents, where pedestrians would intentionally get themselves rammed by a bus, hoping to collect a big judgment against the bus company.

But the response by the bus companies was unusual. They told their drivers that if they injured some pedestrian, they needed to “finish the job”, to kill them. This soon resulted in a minor bus-pedestrian accident being follow by the pedestrian running for their life as the bus driver pursued them with intent of running them over.

I mention this story to put it in context to American criminal and civil law.

If a person shoots and wounds a thief, burglar, armed robber or other violent criminal, the bullet recipient may very well lie to the police, and if believed, might actually get the gun owner arrested, and the wrong person being tried for the wrong crime.

And convicted or not, after such a trial, the criminal may sue the gun owner, which even if they lose could cost the gun owner thousands of dollars, and if they win, wipe out the gun owner entirely, winning the criminal more money than the original crime could have.

Which is all based on just one thing: that the criminal was wounded, not killed, by the gun owner.

If the criminal is killed, well, bye.

[Tenacious 1]

The real moral is to aim for center mass and let the chips fall where they may.The real moral is to aim for center mass and let the chips fall where they may.

Good statement and I agree. But we do have to live with ourselves in the aftermath of killing someone even in the event of self defense. I'm sure its easier for some than others, especially if, upon reflection, you question your own judgement. I think I would sleep fine at night knowing I did what I had to to defend myself and my family..... unless I found that the criminal was deaf, drunk and had a cell phone in his pocket that he was getting out.

If you have ever been in one of these situations, time REALLY does slow WAY DOWN as our brains accelerate processing and thought by several times. The details that can be recalled from only a short few seconds during the aftermath can be frightening. And you will find yourself reviewing those details over and over again regardless of the outcome.

[libstripper]

If you have to shoot, shoot decisively to stop the perp. If the perp dies, then the shooter may well be the only witness.

[PowderMonkey]

"A prime lesson form this incident is the observation that criminals lie."

Umm...no. The lesson is, if you are involved in a shootout, shutupabboudit! Don't talk to the press about it. Don't post online about it. Don't even post online any hypotheticals about what you would do about it if it did happen. Some posted comments will come back to bite you later in court. Did I mention not talking to the press? They are not your friend.

[libstripper]

Once GZ shot St. Trayvon of the Skittles (SBUH), GZ did everything right. The cops, thank God, did their part with a fully professional investigation and exonerated him. Once one is in the defensive shooter situation, the least dangerous thing to do is call the cops, NOT alter the scene in any way, and get legal counsel. In most of the cases, as seen from many of the reports here on FR, the bonafide defensive shooter is exonerated. The person who does shoot, shovel, and shut up, is totally exposed if caught and the concealment will be held harshly against him.

[elcid1970]

A dead criminal tells no lies. Simple.

[Mister Da]

A very wise LEO told me that in situations like this: Make sure only one story is told - yours.

[Safetgiver]

But we do have to live with ourselves in the aftermath of killing someone even in the event of self defense....It ain’t that hard to do. Trust me.

[longfellow]

the savage was breaking into HIS car and then started to come at him. He’s an criminal, no longer a human being. And he would have killed this guy and had no respect for a human being the moment he placed his hand on that car.