PDA

View Full Version : Don't Shoot Them While They're Running Away!


AnnieOWannabe
05-01-2009, 03:40 PM
Here's an interesting story from up north . . . Really glad she had a gun and glad she missed them while they were running away.

Santa Fe New Mexican, The (NM)

BURGLARS FLEE HAIL OF BULLETS
JASON AUSLANDER
Published: April 23, 2009
Police search for suspects after woman fends off robbers with .44 Magnum By Jason Auslander

The New Mexican

Lisa Gallegos was taking a bath Wednesday morning when she heard a knock at the front door of her Eldorado-area home.

Assuming the person would leave, the 41-year-old construction contractor ignored it. Then she saw a shadow move past her bathroom window. Thinking it might be her father-in-law, who lives nearby and sometimes brings over paperwork, Gallegos called him on her cell phone. However, he said he wasn't there. He offered to come over, but Gallegos said she wasn't worried.

Next she heard a car engine and thought the person at the door was leaving. But the shadow passed by her bathroom window again.

"Then I hear a big bang," Gallegos said in a phone interview Wednesday evening, "and I knew someone was breaking into my house."

She jumped out of the bathtub, wrapped herself in a towel and grabbed the loaded .44 Magnum revolver she keeps by her bed.

"I thought, 'Someone is robbing my house and I'm not going to let this happen,' " Gallegos said. "I work hard for my stuff."

Holding her towel with one hand and the gun in the other, Gallegos crept quietly to the area of the home where she could hear two people rummaging around. One man was in her daughter's bedroom, while the other was in her office. Gallegos concentrated first on the man in her daughter's room.

"So I pulled up the gun and aimed it at the guy -- he didn't see me -- and I said, 'Get the (expletive) out of my house,' " she said. "He looks up and he comes toward me running. I was about to pull the trigger, and he sees the gun, and he goes to my right and out the door he came in."

The man had parked his dark blue, late 1990s sport-utility vehicle in her home's courtyard, and she saw him slam one of the doors shut. Gallegos said she was afraid he was going to retrieve a weapon, so she fired a round at his car. The man jumped into the vehicle, spun the wheels and drove out of the courtyard.

Gallegos then turned her attention to the man in the office, who shut the door when he heard the gunshot. She said she could hear him trying to get out a window. She went outside and saw the man in the SUV driving around her home, so she fired three more shots at him.

The man in the office fled out the window, and Gallegos saw him running across a field toward the SUV. Gallegos fired one shot at him and watched him fall to the ground. The man then got back on his feet and jumped into the SUV, and the vehicle sped away.

"It was a quite a thing," said Gallegos, who is also a volunteer Eldorado firefighter and mother of two children. "It was kind of scary."

Gallegos got a partial New Mexico license plate number of the SUV -- 011-D -- and told detectives the men appeared to be in their 20s. She described the man in her daughter's bedroom as 5-foot-9, 180 pounds with dark hair, dark eyes, medium-colored skin, wearing a dark blue jacket and blue jeans, said Santa Fe County Undersheriff Robert Garcia. She only described the other man as wearing a light-colored shirt.

Gallegos said sheriff's investigators later told her she could have been arrested if she had shot one of the men while they were fleeing because they no longer represented a threat. Garcia confirmed that fact, but said that if she had shot the man as he ran toward her or when she thought he was going for a weapon, it would have been legal.

Gallegos said she was sure the man was trying to attack her when he ran at her and only veered away when he saw the gun.

"Had he gotten any closer, I was ready to shoot him," she said.

Investigators found no traces of blood outside the home on Mejor Lado, and figure the man who was in the office likely slipped on gravel when Gallegos saw him fall, Garcia said. Also, no one with gunshot wounds showed up at Christus St. Vincent Regional Medical Center on Wednesday, he said.

"I'm really glad I didn't have to shoot somebody," Gallegos said. "But I was really ready to shoot the weapon. I didn't want to have to go hide in my bedroom and wait for them to come in there."

Garcia also said he was glad no one was hurt.

"These are two very lucky burglars," he said.

Still, Garcia worried that the increasing number of burglaries in the Santa Fe area could lead to future injuries.

"It could be that people are getting fed up with their houses being broken into," he said. "Hopefully no one will get hurt."

Contact Jason Auslander at 986-3076 or jauslander@sfnewmexican.com.

AussieRogue
05-01-2009, 08:07 PM
Good on her for taken the actions she did

Bman505
05-02-2009, 09:18 AM
She is lucky she had a gun in the house.

Chuck
05-02-2009, 10:30 AM
This story reminded me of the bathtub scene from "The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly."

Jizzle
05-03-2009, 03:42 PM
If someone was leaving after trying to rob you, you should still be allowed to shoot them. Natural selection. You are dumb enough to try to rob me or someone else that has the ability to protect their stuff, sorry about your luck dumbass. Run faster maybe I won't hit you.

Just because your life isn't in danger anymore doesn't mean that they won't endanger some one else later. They have already show the intent and the ability.

Honestly, what kind of concrete justification can anyone give me for not shooting all theives regardless to wether they are leaving or not.

You break into my house and it's your ass point blank period dot. And you better hope it's my wife who's home at the time and not me. She MIGHT just let the dog (Italian Mastiff) handle you instead of shooting you outright.

Jizzle
05-03-2009, 03:44 PM
I hate how cops just say, hey here's a hypothetical situation to think about that didn't happen. I hope it scares you into not taking any action next time so that you give us time to get here so that we can do nothing and call someone to clean up the mess that the theives that left about 15 minutes ago left.

AussieRogue
05-03-2009, 08:51 PM
If anyone breaks into my home he will be meet by MR hollowpoint and 16 of his friends :D

MrReady
05-03-2009, 11:49 PM
Well, I think more women should be familiar with firearms. She saved her own life, instead of waiting on someone else to help her. Good for her.

Jizzle
05-04-2009, 06:57 AM
more men too. america is getting pretty p*ss*fied.

Bman505
05-04-2009, 08:41 AM
If someone was leaving after trying to rob you, you should still be allowed to shoot them. Natural selection. You are dumb enough to try to rob me or someone else that has the ability to protect their stuff, sorry about your luck dumbass. Run faster maybe I won't hit you.

Just because your life isn't in danger anymore doesn't mean that they won't endanger some one else later. They have already show the intent and the ability.

Honestly, what kind of concrete justification can anyone give me for not shooting all thieves regardless to Werther they are leaving or not.

You break into my house and it's your ass point blank period dot. And you better hope it's my wife who's home at the time and not me. She MIGHT just let the dog (Italian Mastiff) handle you instead of shooting you outright.

I understand that you think you should still be able to shoot them, but the law sees it differently. I believe you can only shoot to remove the immediate threat. Once the threat has been removed or has left, you can not continue to shoot. If you do shoot someone in the back as they are trying to leave your house, you could be in serious trouble. The judge and jury aren't going to give in to " well, he was dumb enough to rob me". Your concrete justification is the law! Be careful in how you use your weapon or it could cost you thousands to defend yourself.

Jizzle
05-04-2009, 10:39 AM
No the law doesn't count as concrete justification. There plenty of laws that don't make any sense just like this one for example in a couple states it is illegal to shoot someone while they are in your house, even if they are tresspassing and or threatening you, you are required to try to leave first and try to escape (you are not allowed to meet force with force) and if you do shoot them you will be subject to arrest and civil suit for wrongful death (see any D.C. home defense news stories). Not to mention there are multiple states that do have laws stating that you can shoot someone even if they are trying to leave your home/property if you are protecting your property or your neighbors (Castle Doctrine for instance). For an example google Joe Horn.

I was asking for someone to give me an example of a concrete reason why you would not shoot someone who was exiting your home after robbing you or even a neighbor. These laws only protect criminals. Why are we protecting them?

Chuck
05-04-2009, 02:31 PM
No the law doesn't count as concrete justification. There plenty of laws that don't make any sense just like this one for example in a couple states it is illegal to shoot someone while they are in your house, even if they are tresspassing and or threatening you, you are required to try to leave first and try to escape (you are not allowed to meet force with force) and if you do shoot them you will be subject to arrest and civil suit for wrongful death (see any D.C. home defense news stories). Not to mention there are multiple states that do have laws stating that you can shoot someone even if they are trying to leave your home/property if you are protecting your property or your neighbors (Castle Doctrine for instance). For an example google Joe Horn.

I was asking for someone to give me an example of a concrete reason why you would not shoot someone who was exiting your home after robbing you or even a neighbor. These laws only protect criminals. Why are we protecting them?


Jizzle,
From my studies I believe the Castle Doctrine in most states serves a different purpose than what you are referring to. Without getting into too lengthy of a legal discussion, I'll try to address the idea of using deadly force to protect property here in New Mexico and save the Castle Doctrine for another time. This is just a few thoughts on the legal issues. It does not address the moral and philosophical side of when to use deadly force.

That type of shooting is as you stated, allowed in some states but not in others. What the officer told the victim in this news story was correct from his perspective (from what police officers in New Mexico are trained to do) but it is arguable for citizens. The officer really should not have given that advice without some strong caveats.
Police officers are limited in their use of force by several USSC decisions. Prior to 1984 it was common in most states that police officers could use deadly force to stop any fleeing felon. After the Garner decision, all deadly force training for police officers changed.
That decision was the basis for the Ability, Opportunity, and Intent (or Imminent Jeopardy) decision making criteria.
Those same criteria are often applied to deadly force training for citizens without police powers, even in states that allow deadly force to protect property. You should have received some information on that criteria or something very similar in your concealed weapon training.

Personally, I am hesistant to use deadly force to protect property, even though our state statue seems to allow for it. Even if you are in a state or a situation where you can legally use deadly force to protect property, I recommend adhering to the Ability, Opportunity, and Intent criteria because it will be readily recognized by the police officers that will investigate that incident. The closer you are to following their decision making process, the more likely they will find facts to justify your use of force.

I am aware of citizens being prosecuted in northern counties for shooting someone that did not pose an imminent threat to their persons but may have been a threat to their property. If you use your gun to protect your property rather than your life, you may have to take a big chance with an affimative defense and prove the circumstances fit 30-2-7A, NMSA. It will be very expensive and there is a chance you will lose.
One of the cases I am thinking of when a citizen shot someone to protect his property involved a couple of teenage girls that may have attempted to enter a man's home through a window in Las Vegas, NM last year. The man shot one of the girls outside the window and killed her. He was charged and jailed. While he was waiting in jail since he could not afford the bond, his house was burned down. I don't recall anyone being charged for the arson. I don't remember the man's name but if I can find it, I'll post it for you so you can follow the court records.

Here is the text of the New Mexico statute that would be used to defend such a use of deadly force:

30-2-7. Justifiable homicide by citizen.

Homicide is justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:
A. when committed in the necessary defense of his life, his family or his property, or in necessarily defending against any unlawful action directed against himself, his wife or family;
B. when committed in the lawful defense of himself or of another and when there is a reasonable ground to believe a design exists to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury against such person or another, and there is imminent danger that the design will be accomplished; or
C. when necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed in his presence, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in necessarily and lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.

You can verify the text here:
http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&2.0


Subsection A contains the part that would allow deadly force to protect property, BUT, if you use deadly force here, the grand jury may or may not receive instructions on this statute. They may just get enough information that they feel they have no choice to indict, depending on how much support for that use of force the DA has. If that happens, you are on your way to district court and this statute will only apply if you can get facts to support an affirmative defense into court.

Bottom line is shooting people to protect stuff is likely to cost you much more than the stuff is worth. If you save that level of force for protecting lives, you will come out ahead.

Bman505
05-04-2009, 03:40 PM
God stuff Chuck, Thank you for clarifying that. I feel the same way as you. I would rather not take the chance of loosing my home while trying to protect it. Now, if my family is in jeopardy, it is a totally different ball game!!

Jizzle
05-05-2009, 07:16 AM
I'm not saying it would be smart to shoot them legally. Trust me I do understand the legal side of it.

I'm saying why do we have laws in place to protect criminals. Who follows the laws? We do. So, why are there laws to protect the lawless is all I'm asking.

It's BS. It just makes it easier to be a useless member of society.

b_right101
10-27-2011, 06:46 AM
Yup, It will produce many injuries.

katakot
11-03-2011, 07:46 PM
i strongly agree on that..we have the law.

Sam
11-12-2011, 10:15 PM
Although state statute allows shooting 'em to protect property, the case law doesn't back it up.
Don't even think about it