Agree or Disagree?

Dialog re @Karacal 's point.
The odd thing is one has to continue to be aware of what vehicle make and models are the most significant percentage of the total population on the road. Chop shops are looking for what they can turn quickest, per the information hosted by Insurify PPH. Pickup trucks are the car model of choice for many thieves. Not only do their parts sell for a premium on the black market, but car thieves prefer to use this body style as storage for future crime sprees. Pickup trucks are disproportionately represented in theft rates, as they make up four of the ten most stolen models in America. They’re also the most stolen body type in thirty of all fifty states.

I recommend following the hyperlink to Insurify (Or do a Google/Bing search) to discover more interesting data from the metadata analysis.


Amen, I do agree with you there brother.


property crime???

hmmm… not sure about that definition…

kalifornia used that to make people leave their homes if a criminal entered… and not reply with force…

thing is that idea seems to ignore certain realities IMHO…

your home was in the past… sacred…

furthermore it was supposed to be a place where you and your family felt safe… protected…

also… you spend a considerable amount of your life creating that space…

and your vehicle is essential… for many… in continuing the life spent to create your home etc…

got to be able to get to work n such…

just a few of the things such laws seem to ignore…

seems like such laws were designed to soften we the people???

was a time when our possessions and use thereof of said things was also sacred…


Interestingly, when reading the old self-defense stories from the 1960’s and '70’s, they are littered with perps being shot fleeing property crimes, and the victims not being charged. I believe it is still legal in Texas to shoot horse thieves…


All we can say the teens did wrong.And I’m sure the concealed is going through a hard time, dealing with all that he felt he had to do. i feel for him or her as well has the parents of the teens And I feel sorry for the teens , but the made the decision to do wrong. The price tag was high on this one.


Good shoot.

1 Like

Yes, 60s and 70s were less restrictive. In 1985, in Garner vs. Tennessee, shooting a fleeing felon who is unarmed and poses no threat to the officer or the community was ruled unconstitutional. Therefore, the officer, other officers, or the community must be at risk by the perpetrator(s) to justify shooting.

For private citizens the standard becomes more strict and these threats must be immediate, as a private citizen is not responsible to protect the community at large.
Being shot in the back does not necessarily indicate a violation as a fleeing suspect might be shooting while fleeing, etc.

This is a general ruling that applies to police nationwide. It can become part of a consideration regarding a private citizen shooting.


I recall that decision, I did not recall when, but I understand that it was due to the courts that things changed, which were likely swayed by changes in public opinion, including that criminals should be “rehabiliatated”, not imprisoned, and given “parole” and “probation”. The results we see today reflect how well that works.


I agree with you. Like so often there was an exaggerated swing in the opposite direction and balance was and is never achieved.

My primary point is that it is stricter for private citizens when a felon begins to flee and the “fine lines” develop.


Understood, that is definitely true about the private citizen. It was good for you to expound on my post, as I had not given that detail.


Assuming the “kid” was right handed he could have been turning and still pointing the gun at the same time. More importantly even if the criminal did turn to run away it takes time for a defender’s eyes to tell his brain that the threat has turned, then the brain has to decide that the turn is actually an attempt to flee and not just repositioning, and then it has to stop the orders to fire it was sending to the trigger finger. Under ideal conditions this would take at least a second or two to figure out. The middle of an adrenaline dump during a carjacking is not ideal conditions.

I train to fire in pairs or short strings so I can have brief pauses to hopefully be able to properly assess if the target is still a threat. But I can pretty easily fire 4 rounds in a second in a scenario where I decide I am being attacked and need to regain the initiative. If I am doing things according to my training all 4 of those shots would hit the target before I could realize and assess that the criminal chose to run away. If he starts the turn just as I start firing some of those shots may hit him in the back.

An anti gun prosecutor may not care and an uninformed jury may not understand this. But we should know better and not judge until all the facts are in.


The Tennessee V Garner case is a real conundrum. It is worth reading the majority opinion AND the descent. The court was split 6/3 on the decision and, frankly, I agree with the descent.
In this particular case, Garner was unarmed and running away with $10 and a purse. But this was a burglary which is often not just a property crime. It is likely that the result would have been completely different if the owner was beaten, raped, kidnapped, Killed or any number of other heinous crimes.
When officer Hymon shot Garner, he did not know if he was armed or if the occupant of the home was injured or killed. Had something more serious occurred, the court would have likely sided with the descent.
The problem is that if a burglary results in the death, rape or injury of the occupant and police end up just having to let the perpetrator go, the community suffers a significant injury.

Sorry I forgot the link for the opinion … Tennessee v. Garner :: 471 U.S. 1 (1985) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center


@Shamrock I absolutely agree, and I appreciate your detailed description. This is why I said one could imagine endless scenarios in which it’s feasible, indeed reasonable, that an attacker gets shot in the back; I just failed to make my point clear. The defender in this case most likely acted very reasonably. As for classifying the attacker as a “kid” (and you correctly reclassify him as “criminal”) I didn’t mean to connote innocence, I just have a habit of thinking of anyone less than 1/3 my age (and even a bunch of professional colleagues) as ‘kids’, e.g. “How the heck did this kid end up in a position in his life where this became a good option for him?” What you illustrate very clearly is that the language we choose matters a great deal, particularly when dealing with legal matters.

Stay safe out there!


If they were armed, absolustely. Otherwise, NO, how would you show bodily threat/harm to himself???