Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
Posted on 04/29/2006 3:37:39 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
The owner of an Andrews-area convenience store, accused of taking the law into his own hands after he witnessed an alleged gas drive off Wednesday, is charged with two counts of assault and battery with intent to kill. Dennis Cooper, 52, the owner of Cooper’s Six Mile Crossing Convenience Store allegedly chased and then fired shots at a vehicle after the driver reportedly drove off without paying for $28 worth of gas.
According to an incident report, the ordeal began about 4:20 p.m. Wednesday when 18-year-old Joshua Jennings, of Gray Court, S.C., and 18-year-old Jacob Skelly, of Fountain Inn stopped and pumped gas into the truck they were driving.
Cooper, who was inside the store, saw them start to drive away before they walked inside to pay, so he allegedly jumped in his SUV and gave chase.
The suspects drove down Highway 521 and onto Kent Road headed toward Highway 17A. When they got close to that intersection, Jennings and Skelly saw Cooper coming up behind them.
“This is when Cooper began firing shots at them as they turned left on US 17A and then right on Highway 521 trying to avoid the gunshots,” Sheriff’s Department spokesman Sgt. Neil Johnson said. “Cooper continued to chase and fire shots striking the vehicle in the back glass.”
When Skelly, the passenger, began screaming he had been shot, Jennings pulled over.
Deputy Kevin Holt was the first officer on the scene. When he arrived he saw Cooper holding the two men on the ground at gunpoint. Skelly, who was bleeding from his head, “was begging to get treatment from EMS,” Holt reported. When the medical team arrived, it was determined Skelly had not been hit by a bullet but by glass from the broken truck window. He was transported to the hospital for treatment. Jennings was uninjured. There was one bullet hole in Jennings’ truck, according to Johnson.
Jennings said when he stopped his truck, he tried to check on Skelly but Cooper “slapped him in the head, so he got down on the ground,” Holt’s report states. All three men were arrested. Jennings and Skelly were charged with for failure to pay for gasoline. Cooper’s .45 automatic was placed into evidence. He was released from jail Thursday under a $40,000 bond.
Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.
While you can't blame this guy for getting pissed off at these two jerks,all he needed to do ws get their license number and report it to the cops!You don't shoot people for this kind of crap!
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
~ ~ (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
~ ~ (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
~ ~ ~ (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
~ ~ ~ (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
~ ~ (3) he reasonably believes that:
~ ~ ~ (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
~ ~ ~ (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.......... Para:3 deals with recovery, not protection as in Para:2 during nightime. I may be wrong but I believe para:3 would stand alone and not be contingent on para:2
Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
~ (b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
~ ~ (1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
~ ~ (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
once the imminent threat of personnal injury is over, you cannot use Deadly Force
Sect 9.41 in conjunction with 9.42 states you have the right to use force to recover property and also the use of deadly force to recover. Brings to mind the guy that shot the wrecker driver for repoing his vehicle illegaly. Or the guy that shot the thief with a bow and arrow for trying to steal his truck. Niether was charged.
>>Para:3 deals with recovery, not protection as in Para:2
>>during nightime. I may be wrong but I believe para:3 would
>>stand alone and not be contingent on para:2
I don't think so if they are using and's and or's in a boolean fashion here. By that logic, a person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property as long as he meets the criteria set in 1 and either 2(A) or 2(B), and either 3(A) or 3(B).
The key "and" in this case is the one at the end of 2(B). Were 3 stand alone I would have expected it to be an "or".
The concept of the right to use of deadly force in defense of property is often misunderstood, and can have terrible personal consequences if misapplied, you are in terrible danger if you REALLY believe that guy had RIGHTS according to Texas law.
Thanks for the chat...sun is out and I have errands to run.
Be careful and be safe...
Para.9.41 states you have the right to use force to recover. In the instance in the article he did not use deadly force but he did use the threat of it to recover.The guy in the article was arrested for assault with intent to kill, I say it was threat to use deadly force to recover.
You don't need a license to own a handgun in SC, only to carry one concealed.
>>Para.9.41 states you have the right to use force to recover.
>>In the instance in the article he did not use deadly force >>but
>>he did use the threat of it to recover.The guy in the article
>>was arrested for assault with intent to kill, I say it was
>>threat to use deadly force to recover.
Perhaps it was, perhaps not. 9.41 is not the finest piece of legalistic prose ever written and what constitutes "threat to use deadly force" versus "deadly force" is open to interpretation. If this were in Texas you can bet that the prosecution would take one interpretation and defense the other leaving the jury to decide.
When I owned and operated gas stations, I was paying employees $2.25 per hour. I made 5 cents per gallon. If somebody drove off with $28.00 of gas, I had to sell an additional 560 gallons of gas to make up for the loss (not counting employee wages and taxes during the addtional 560 sales)
Personally I believe in vigilante justice. I think that since the car has replaced the horse that car thieves should be hung as were horse thieves.
Ultimately, the people who stole from me (including employees) put me out of business and way, way into debt at the time. Maybe that is why I'm not so forgiving.
I agree and it would also depend on what county and the political outlook of the local sherrif. I know there are places in Texas where this would not have even been in the news. It also would depend on who the boys were related to and how well the cops knew the victim, etc. If the victim belonged to a certain organization and the demographics of the area also.
You're going to file an insurance claim for a $28 theft? Assume that it's one $28 drive off a day for a month, that's $840. You probably haven't reached his deductible for a claim. After that one drive off, he's going to have to sell almost 1000 gallons of gas to make enough profit to cover that one loss.
Granted, he screwed up, big-time. But don't assume that those drive-offs could just be ignored and absorbed as a cost of doing business.
But not deadly force.
Para 9.42 deals with deadly force.
The short version:
A person is justified in using deadly force in protection of property to the degree you reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the other from committing or fleeing after committing arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during nighttime, and you reasonable believe it can’t be protected by any other means or not using deadly force would put you at risk of death or serious bodily injury.
I say it was threat to use deadly force to recover.
Waving a firearm in the air is a possible threat.
Pointing a firearm at someone is a threat.
Firing a firearm is use with intent to do something.
Firing a firearm more than once sure looks and smells like intent to kill somebody somehow.
And, as I hinted above, there are conditions by which even should 9.42 apply, the right is lost when its exercise is reckless or endangers an innocent third party
Should've used the .22, cheaper.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
South Carolina Ping