Response to attempted Bike Theft

[dezzy7]

Officials: Man shot trying to steal bikes
Police say owners returned midtheft
By Dave Gustafson
The Sun News (Myrtle Beach)

A man is fighting for his life after being shot in the head Thursday night during an attempted theft of several motorcycles from behind a motel, Myrtle Beach and Horry County police say.

The man, whose identity has not been released, and at least two other men were attempting to steal motorcycles from behind the Super 8 Motel at U.S. 17 Bypass and Socastee Boulevard when two of the bike owners returned to find the bikes being loaded into the back of a van, said Horry County Detective Nathan Johnson.

One of the owners, whose name has not been released, was then nearly run over by the van, Johnson said.

At that point, the bike owner pulled out a gun and fired several shots into the van, one striking the driver in the head. The van then ran into a nearby home, causing some damage, Johnson said.

The driver was transported to Grand Strand Regional Medical Center, then flown to the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, where he remains in critical condition.

No charges have been filed in the shooting, which remains under investigation. At least one man has been charged with motorcycle theft.

Ronald Freeman, 25, of Willingboro, N.J., was charged in Myrtle Beach with grand larceny, said Lt. Chuck Dunn of the Myrtle Beach police. At least one other man may face charges.

Brothers Michael Pellett, 26, and Matthew Pellet, 24, were at home Thursday night when a man came to their door with some blood on his clothes, saying he was in an accident and needed to use the phone because his friend was hurt.

They told the man they didn't have a phone but offered to drive him to a gas station.

"His story got a little shady in the car," Michael Pellett said.

They got to the end of the street when police arrived and started an investigation.

There was some jurisdictional confusion at the scene, as the edge of the motel property where the motorcycles were parked is in city jurisdiction, but the street where the shooting took place falls under the county's watch.

However, Myrtle Beach police assisted with a K-9 unit and a crime scene unit.

Police are not saying whether a fourth larceny suspect was involved.

The shooting and theft remain under investigation.

I can't blame him, first you try to steal my bike, and then you try to run me down.... yep you probably deserved to get CAPPED!

 

[Revlis]

Yeah, here's a story that needs to get some wide distribution. Make the lil Thugees think twice about trying to swipe your ride.

 

[Juggler]

A bullet in the head or ass. Works for me!

 

[Houston_Rider]

I think a shot in the head is a little extreme.... using deadly force to stop someone shouldn't be taken lightly.

 

[NightStalker]

using deadly force to stop someone shouldn't be taken lightly[/QUOTE]
I agree, but same goes for swiping some-one's ride ... Theft insurance here would cost me 4.000 $ a year (1/3 of the bike's worth) ... If mine was stolen I'd probably be "busa-less" for over 5 years (to collect enough money to buy me a new one) ... So if it DID happen in front of my eyes, I'm sure I'd do ANYTHING to stop them from succeeding. And if the thief involved thought the bike was worth enough to risk his life over it then that is HIS problem, not mine ...

Btw: the guy "defending" his bike was less than likely aiming for his head. I mean: a van speeding away from you? He sprayed it, he didn't aim for it. The fact that the bullet hit him straight in the head just means he had REALLY bad luck. I am in no way implying that he deserves to die, I'm just saying he had it coming.

I don't view bike-theft as a theft of something physical, he didn't ride of with something made by japanese people wich i incidentely owned. No, he drove away on thousands of hours of hard work I had to put in to BUY that bike.

There are two kinds of theft: One kind of people do it to survive, the other just to get rich fast. The first one doesn't nab busa's, the second one does. The first one deserves pity and attention, the second one deserves 2 to the body and 1 to the head.

 

[MET]

Works for me. Lets follow the story to see that the shooters do not get smacked with a personal law suit from the thiefs.

 

[race24x]

No kidding the guy will probably end up getting chraged with something. Using a gun on someone is alittle overboard for stealing your bike. Mess with my family and I have no quam about killing your ass. But steal my bike I am pissed would love to kick the crap out of yah but its not worth someones life. Maybe he got what he deserved not my call and some people believe its ok to kill someone over stealing your ride. Man I dont know what I would do. I have quite a temper at times beat the crap out of a guy for tipping over my 1100 when we got into a fight(he started and I have never seen a penney out of the piece of crap to repair bike) DOnt know till it happens.

 

[Big O]

One of the owners, whose name has not been released, was then nearly run over by the van, Johnson said.

At that point, the bike owner pulled out a gun and fired several shots into the van, one striking the driver in the head


Here it seems the van was used as a deadly weapon. The owner didn't just walk up and pull a gun on the thieves stealing his bike and start shooting...

 

[NightStalker]

Lets follow the story to see that the shooters do not get smacked with a personal law suit from the thiefs.[/QUOTE]
That's the sad reality. Can you believe I actually had this advise from a police officer: "If you EVER shoot a burglar, make sure you kill him ... dead people don't sue"

Dont know till it happens.[/QUOTE]
True, I may think I'd shoot the bastards when it ever happens, but how would I know? I have never killed a person (not even an animal for that matter) and I think it would be more than likely I'd freeze and be to afraid to even aim, let alone pull the trigger.

 

[NightStalker]

Here it seems the van was used as a deadly weapon.[/QUOTE]
That's where the legal quarrel begins: The person WAS at one point in a life threatening situation, but NOT anymore at the point he fired the shots. We had a jeweler in the same situation here: he was sued, found guilty but was never punished. He now DOES have a file for assault.

 

[SierraFlyer]

Back in our lawless days of the old west, People would hang for stealing a horse. How should they die if stealing a Busa at 170 horses?

In California, the shooter in this story would get a murder charge and the thief would get a slap on the wrist. That is backwards lawlessness in my opinion. If the courts don't step up and defend the victims insteasd of the criminals, then it is a matter of time before we start to see vigilantees again.

 

[rubbersidedown]

punks will never cease to amaze me . They take a big chance trying to steal someones stuff . Might even get shot in the head . It takes work,planning,stake-outs,finding a get away vehicle,finding someone to buy the stolen goodies,meetings,phone-calls,yadda yadda yadda .

Finding a fuggin JOB would be easier .

I like the countries that lop yer friggin hand off if you get caught stealing .

There are resources to help you if yer starving...... welfare,shelters,food banks, etc etc.

No one has to steal . Not in North America they dont .
The theft profits arent usually spent on food anyway ,
more than likely crac cocain , or some other equally useless thing .
Thieves....kill 'em all , let god sort 'em out.

 

[darby ofool]

i think they got what they deserve if you have to steal it then deal with whatever happens if the owner catch's you

 

[Big O]

That's where the legal quarrel begins: The person WAS at one point in a life threatening situation, but NOT anymore at the point he fired the shots.

The person is in a life threatening situation, as long as the van is coming towards him even though he is firing shots at it.

 

[NightStalker]

The person is in a life threatening situation, as long as the van is coming towards him even though he is firing shots at it.[/QUOTE]
My mistake, I was under the impression he fired AFTER the van had passed him by. In that case: good aiming on his part, and balls of steal ... I would have run ...
If this is indeed the case, I see no reason for a lawsuit, since justice has already been served ...

 

[Revlis]

Use of Deadly force in most states is authorized to protect ones self and others from serious harm, rape, dude with a bat, etc.  In a lot of states, deadly force is authorized to prevent a felony act, or self defense, though for self defense your life or another life must be in immediate danger.

Here you go, this a fairly typical in most states, except California where everything involving your right to protect yourself has been pretty well shat away.

Ability, Opportunity, Manifest Jeapordy, and Preclusion, are the cornerstones of any legally justifiable act of self-defense, especially using a weapon. In "Fundamentals of Defensive Shooting" by John Farnam, there is the best explaination of these concepts that I have found to date;


There are four elements to legitimate self defense, and they must all be present simultaneously in order for there to be a situation where deadly self-defensive actions are warranted. They are:


1. ability
2. opportunity
3. manifest intent (imminent jeapordy)
4. preclusion


An "ability" is simply an injurious capacity. It usually manifests itself in the form of a weapon of some sort, but not always. Serious injury can be inflicted by many individuals using no weapon at all. The person you applied deadly force against must have been "able" to kill you or inflict serious bodily harm. Threats alone do not suffice, unless he had the ability in hand to carry them out. If you were attacked by a person much larger than yourself, or by someone using martial arts techniques, or several individuals at the same time, you may reasonably conclude that he/they had the ability to seriously injure or kill you, even though they may have been technically "unarmed." Diparity in size, age, strength, sex, and the level of aggressiveness of the involved parties are all important matters when considering the element of "ability."


When considering the element of "opportunity," we mus have a situation where this attacker, in addition to having an "ability," was also in a position to bring the destructive powers of his ability to bear effectivly upon you. The question is, were you within the effective range of his weapon(s)? For example, a knife or bludgeon is harmless in the hands of someone standing twenty meters away from you, yet either can be deadly if the person is standing within arm's reach, or is several meters away but closing fast. A firearm, on the other hand, is considered deadly at any range.


You are in "imminent jeapordy" when the attacker unmistakably indicates, by words and/or actions, that it is his intention to kill or seriously injure you, and further, that he intends to do so at once. Your are not permitted to use dealy force to defend yourself against nebulous threats. The danger must be mortal and imminent. It must appear that the circumstances were sufficient to occasion the legitimate fears of a reasonable person, and that you acted under the influence of those fears, not in a spirit of nengeance or criminal assault. When a person has reasonable grounds for believing, and does in fact actually believe, that the danger of his being killed or seriously injured is imminent, he is permitted by law to act in self-defense based on those appearances even, if necessary, to the extent of using lethal force. This is true even if it turns out that the appearances were misleading and the person was thus honestly mistaken as to the real extent of the danger. It is for the jury to decide whether appearances of danger were sufficient so as to justify the defensive actions that were taken.


No one is expected to wait until they have absolute and incontrovertible knowledge that a threat is real. However, there must be an overt act coupled with that threat. The point is, it does no matter if your attacker's "weapon" later proves to be a toy, or non-functional, or unloaded. So long as, under the circumstances, you had good reason to believe (reasonable belief) that the weapon was real and functional and that he intended to use it to harm you forthwith, your defensive actions will likely be considered reasonable and appropriate. Remember, you will be judged only with regard to what you knew and reasonably believed to be true at the time. You will not be judged based upon facts and circumstances of which you had no cognizance.


"Intent" is, after all, a mental process. We therefore cannot perceive intent directly. We can only infer it from the person's actions and/or words. Accordingly, it is an error to say, "He was going to kill me." How do you know? Are you a prophet, or mind-reader?


The fact is that you don't know what was going through his mind. The correct way to phrase it is: "It looked as if he was going to kill me." That way, you correctly identify your motivating factor as his actions, which you can see, not his thoughts, which you cannot see.


Intent is not strictly necessary for imminent jeopardy to be present. You can, for example, be placed in lethal danger by an individual acting with extreme carelessness but who may have no specific intention of harming you.


"Preclusion" simply means that lal other options were precluded. In other words, you used deadly force only as a last, desperate resort. The jury must be persuaded that, under the circumstances, you had no logical or reasonable alternative but to use deadly force to defend yourself. Generally, the more self-restraint you use, the more "reasonable" your actions will look. In fact, "self-restraint" is a key word, particularly if you used a firearm. It is desirable for the jury to see your actions as judicious, restrained, reasonable, and retrogressive. They should believe you made every reasonable effort to abate the situation, even including the use of non-lethal force, before finally resorting to the use of deadly force. Conversely, they should see your attacker's actions as precipitous, unwarranted, barbarous, and unconscionable.


Some states repuire preclusion as a component of legitimate self-defense. Some more liberally-inclined state legislatures have even bassed "manditory retreat laws." In general, the require a person to retreat from an attack, rather than use deadly force to repel it, even when the person attacked otherwise has a right to be where he is. Generally, mandatory retreat laws apply to every situation,except when the victim is in his own home.[/QUOTE]

So while it may be "I would say Fair" that a piece of crap thief gets blown away while stealing someones ride, technically, based on the story, the shooter in this instance may have ruined his life "completely" over some plastic and aluminium.

BUT, Big BUT here, a motor vehicle is considered a deadly weapon, so if the shooter was in "immediate peril" the shooting is justified and he gets to ride himself home.

My $4.95

 

[race24x]

Has anyone ever seen the video on Cops where the cop is standing in front of the car the guy slowly creeps forward and pushes the cop out of the way with the bumper and the cop riddles the car with bullets. No life threatining danger there but they play it every week on TV for people to see. The damn cop thought he could stand in front of the car and if he didnt move and the guy just barely bumped him with the front of the car he could shoot and kill the guy. It all depends on who you are and if the judge and DA are liberals or not

 

[Jace]

I say kill the guy and you wont have to worry about him stealing anything from anybody again .......!!!!!



or another option would be to catch the guy run the bike at about 5K and stick each finger in the chain until you get to the wrist and then go to the other hand ........then he is not dead but will not steal again now will he


criminals are so protected by the law today .....they know that if they do somehting all they will get is some jail time wich they will get out early and spend every day on their ass watchin tv and playing cards or nintendo .......that is what criminals have to look forward to then when they get out go back and try again ........

if you try to take something of mine i will take your life or make you sorry you have tried ......too many stupid people out in the world ......world would be differient if stupid ass people wernt protected by the law


the stupid get away with everyting ........criminals just seem to take better advantage of it !!!!!!

i have no pitty for the stupid
stupid criminals and stupid people on the road

 

[monsterspeedfreak]

I'll have to sit on the pop a cap in ther ass fence.
If someones gonna try and steal sumthin o mine, they're in for a bit of a surprise.
We live on a farm......we have 6 dogs alltogether, the place is totally wired, and I have an answer to every, what type of gun do you own question, a crossbow and a compound
hunting bow: bring on the foolish thief!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Revlis]

Yeah Monster, Get all Mid-evil on em'..."Release the Hounds"

Dude trying to haul your TV out the door with an arrow in his ass...funny.

I always figured they can take my stuff, I'll just get better stuff, it's what I pay insurance for.  But step to myself my wife or a buddy and that will get your ass handed to you...