Golf club thief picked the wrong mark - gets held at gunpoint

[Lihu]

46 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I agree, I have no idea what Acree knew or saw, I don't know whether he actually had seen his clubs, or whether he was just guessing.  I haven't read anyone who knows any of this, but I've read a few guesses and assumptions, including:

Is that particular hypothetical just as ridiculous?  I have yet to read anything that supports that particular guess.

That was in one of the articles. Not sure if true or not. Taking face value.

 

Quote

A view that I disagree with is that since nobody actually got hurt, and the actual thief was caught, that its all good now.   No matter how reckless Acree was, no matter how many people were endangered, its a happy ending for everyone except the thief.

I agree that Acree potentially endangered other people, but OTOH he was probably a pretty good shot and he was aiming at Montgomery's torso from only 10-15 feet away. At that distance, I could be aiming a 500 SW with a super hot and heavy round and not miss.

 

Quote

Well, I had 8 beers last night, and drove 20 miles home from the golf course, but I got home safe so its all good now.  

Is this an on line confession?

[drmevo]

10 hours ago, Lihu said:

He apparently looked at then and recognized them. Then he went back to get his gun and confront the seller (who was a criminal anyway for selling stolen goods).

If that's true, then instead of getting his gun, he should've been calling the cops and watching the guy from a distance.

 

44 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

A view that I disagree with is that since nobody actually got hurt, and the actual thief was caught, that its all good now.   No matter how reckless Acree was, no matter how many people were endangered, its a happy ending for everyone except the thief.  Well, I had 8 beers last night, and drove 20 miles home from the golf course, but I got home safe so its all good now.  

My thoughts exactly, and a fitting analogy. When there is so much that could've gone horribly wrong, it doesn't make sense to say "all's well that ends well."

[Lihu]

1 minute ago, drmevo said:

If that's true, then instead of getting his gun, he should've been calling the cops and watching the guy from a distance.

I think Acree's thoughts were to hold Montgomery there long enough for the cops to show up. Otherwise, the perpetrator would have likely fled the scene. It's tough to prove anything once he flees. There are many issues that would have likely prevented the same outcome.

 

1 minute ago, drmevo said:

My thoughts exactly, and a fitting analogy. When there is so much that could've gone horribly wrong, it doesn't make sense to say "all's well that ends well."

Not quite the same analogy.

[drmevo]

14 minutes ago, Lihu said:

I think Acree's thoughts were to hold Montgomery there long enough for the cops to show up. Otherwise, the perpetrator would have likely fled the scene. It's tough to prove anything once he flees. There are many issues that would have likely prevented the same outcome.

If Acree never confronted Montgomery in the first place, why would he be fleeing? And even if he does, in the situation you describe, Acree should have plenty of opportunity to grab the license plate, vehicle description, etc., and let the police know which way he headed.

14 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Not quite the same analogy.

Huh?  The point is that getting away with reckless behavior does not make it OK. What are you disputing about that?

Edited August 24, 2016 by drmevo

[Lihu]

4 minutes ago, drmevo said:

Huh?  The point is that getting away with reckless behavior does not make it OK. What are you disputing about that?

He had probable cause as he apparently recognized his clubs in Montgomery's trunk. Selling stolen goods is also a crime, even if you bought them from the actual thief. One way or another, I'm sure if he was really innocent of stealing them and was more cooperative, then Acree probably wouldn't have gone nuts like that.

 

Quote

There are a couple of things that golfers take very seriously and the top item on that list is their clubs. As one man found out earlier this week, you better not try to steal clubs from a former officer and then attempt to sell them in a Golf Galaxy parking lot. 

http://golf.swingbyswing.com/article/man-holds-up-golf-club-thief-at-gunpoint/

[newtogolf]

Acree appears to act in a reckless manner, while I think all the "what if's" are overly dramatic (especially given none of them happened) I do believe Acree was acting on a purely emotional level and was not exhibiting very rational behavior.   For that reason I do believe he should have his right to carry a gun reviewed but he shouldn't be charged with a crime nor do I believe he will, especially since he is a retired peace officer.

I think Acree is being judged more harshly because the criminal stole $3800 in golf clubs and some might feel differently if the thief stole a $3800 car or something else that is deemed more necessary or important than golf clubs.  

I'm pleased anytime a thug gets caught and hopefully Acree made this guy piss himself so the next time he thinks about stealing from someone he'll remember the potential outcome and decide against it.  

[mcanadiens]

23 minutes ago, drmevo said:

Acree should have plenty of opportunity to grab the license plate, vehicle description, etc., and let the police know which way he headed.

An Barney Fife will dutifully include all those things in his report when he shows up 3 hours later.

[drmevo]

59 minutes ago, mcanadiens said:

An Barney Fife will dutifully include all those things in his report when he shows up 3 hours later.

Sorry if that's the case where you live, but around here, in my experience, the police generally show up in a few minutes. And even if that's not the case, I'll reiterate - is it worth shooting someone and/or possibly being shot at over golf clubs? Because once you pull a gun on someone, you have to accept that as a possible outcome.  

[disco111]

The good guy isn't a very good guy.

I'm at a total loss on this comment...........Just because of a verbal threat to a real bad guy.

I have to shake my head and laugh at the majority of posts about how reckless this arrest was and people where in danger and so on and so forth. Just because a uniform officer makes an arrest on the street against a bad guy, with a weapon drawn, you do think that the surrounding folks are not in danger. Any time a weapon is involved things can go south, but thankfully it does not happen the vast majority of the time. Some stated facts.....1) The gunslinger was not only licenced to carry, but was a state certified peace officer, which means that he has the right and more importantly the duty to stop a crime in progress. That crime in progress was selling stolen items, that just happened to be his, but none the less it was his duty to apprehend. 2) Was his verbal skills lacking?.........As stated prior, yes, but we're dealing in vocabulary. You'd be shocked and most likely appalled at the vocabulary used everyday on the street by officers making an arrest. It's these verbal commands, right or wrong in some peoples opinions, that are used to get the bad guys attention and get him to hopefully respond before it escalates into a shooting. If you've never worked the streets and dealt with the street dialog that's used, then you have no idea, but that's the vocabulary that used and what bad guys will respond to. Now could he have used something less out right other than "I'll kill you" .......sure, but again as stated prior, It's doubtful that he's made many open street arrests and his verbal skills were lacking. We have IMO, 3 types of people.......The good, the bad and the ugly (Old Clint Eastwood movie title). We know the difference between the good and the bad, but the ugly is folks that sit back and watch and then complain about the good guy doing the job that they don't want to do and overlook that fact that a bad guy is a bad guy. Running down the good guys only emboldens the bad guys and makes for less of those that want to take on the job of being the good guy.          

[70sSanO]

18 minutes ago, disco111 said:

The good guy isn't a very good guy.

I'm at a total loss on this comment...........Just because of a verbal threat to a real bad guy.

I have to shake my head and laugh at the majority of posts about how reckless this arrest was and people where in danger and so on and so forth. Just because a uniform officer makes an arrest on the street against a bad guy, with a weapon drawn, you do think that the surrounding folks are not in danger. Any time a weapon is involved things can go south, but thankfully it does not happen the vast majority of the time. Some stated facts.....1) The gunslinger was not only licenced to carry, but was a state certified peace officer, which means that he has the right and more importantly the duty to stop a crime in progress. That crime in progress was selling stolen items, that just happened to be his, but none the less it was his duty to apprehend. 2) Was his verbal skills lacking?.........As stated prior, yes, but we're dealing in vocabulary. You'd be shocked and most likely appalled at the vocabulary used everyday on the street by officers making an arrest. It's these verbal commands, right or wrong in some peoples opinions, that are used to get the bad guys attention and get him to hopefully respond before it escalates into a shooting. If you've never worked the streets and dealt with the street dialog that's used, then you have no idea, but that's the vocabulary that used and what bad guys will respond to. Now could he have used something less out right other than "I'll kill you" .......sure, but again as stated prior, It's doubtful that he's made many open street arrests and his verbal skills were lacking. We have IMO, 3 types of people.......The good, the bad and the ugly (Old Clint Eastwood movie title). We know the difference between the good and the bad, but the ugly is folks that sit back and watch and then complain about the good guy doing the job that they don't want to do and overlook that fact that a bad guy is a bad guy. Running down the good guys only emboldens the bad guys and makes for less of those that want to take on the job of being the good guy.          

Actually he was a retired fire marshal... no uniform, no badge, etc.  While I do agree that Montgomery is a bad guy, I think there is a point where someone who is not in law enforcement and no longer employed in a position that requires his use of a firearm, has become no more than a private citizen.

In a lot of ways it is not that much different than anyone who has served in the armed forces.  Even though they served with honor and protected this country from far worse bad guys, once they are discharged or retire, they can't trot around with an M16 in case they feel they need to be called to action... except maybe in Montana.

John

Edited August 24, 2016 by 70sSanO

[Ernest Jones]

5 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

 

A view that I disagree with is that since nobody actually got hurt, and the actual thief was caught, that its all good now.   No matter how reckless Acree was, no matter how many people were endangered, its a happy ending for everyone except the thief.  Well, I had 8 beers last night, and drove 20 miles home from the golf course, but I got home safe so its all good now.  

This^^^^^.

 

[DaveP043]

23 minutes ago, disco111 said:

Just because a uniform officer makes an arrest on the street against a bad guy, with a weapon drawn, you do think that the surrounding folks are not in danger. Any time a weapon is involved things can go south, but thankfully it does not happen the vast majority of the time.

That crime in progress was selling stolen items, that just happened to be his, but none the less it was his duty to apprehend.

, It's doubtful that he's made many open street arrests         

Perhaps others with applicable knowledge will weight in on this.  I wonder what the guidelines are for a uniformed officer concerning when he should use his weapon to stop a non-violent crime, such as sale of stolen goods?  I'm guessing that use of an officer's firearm should be a last resort, not a first choice.

I do agree with the last bit I quoted.  As a Fire Marshall, and a certified peace officer, I'm sure Mr. Acree received some training in these situations, perhaps even some "practice" sessions.  However, as a Fire Marshall, I'd guess that his direct experience with open street arrests is pretty slim, perhaps even nonexistent.  Being retired, his recent experience is almost certainly nonexistent.

From the start, I have never defended the thief, and I can't remember reading that anyone else has defended him.  I do, however, remain convinced that Mr. Acree was over the line in using a firearm in a completely non-violent situation, that he appears to have a very tenuous grasp on his own self-control (evidenced by his kick to the head), and the combination of the firearm with his limited self-control put the thief and the bystanders at an exaggerated and unnecessary risk.

[iacas]

5 hours ago, Lihu said:

Not quite the same analogy.

In what way? Because to me it's a pretty appropriate analogy.

1 hour ago, disco111 said:

"The good guy isn't a very good guy."

I'm at a total loss on this comment...........Just because of a verbal threat to a real bad guy.

Uhh, no. Not "just because of a verbal threat." The "good guy" did a hell of a lot more wrong than verbally threaten a guy.

1 hour ago, disco111 said:

I have to shake my head and laugh at the majority of posts about how reckless this arrest was and people where in danger and so on and so forth. Just because a uniform officer makes an arrest on the street against a bad guy, with a weapon drawn, you do think that the surrounding folks are not in danger.

Police don't pull their guns for every arrest, and they have far, far more training than this guy. They don't threaten to kill someone, and generally speaking, they don't kick people in the head after they're down on the ground not resisting.

I have to shake my head and laugh at people who think that what he did was totally fine, and justifiable, and legal.

1 hour ago, disco111 said:

Any time a weapon is involved things can go south…

Which is why so many have a problem with the use (presentation, etc.) of a gun here.

[disco111]

OK, some folks just do not want to read and comprehend.................The fire marshal, even though retired, is STILL CONSIDERED A PEACE OFFICER, which is law enforcement. Now under this heading, he is duty bound to take steps to apprehend. No it's not like being in the armed forces, apples and oranges.

Correct on the part that not every arrest calls for an officer to draw the weapon, but an officer has several other implements available that this particular fire marshal did not have - mace, baton, other officers coming to assist via radio alert and most of all age and conditioning. An active street officer should be in good enough condition to go hands on when that action is called for, but sadly we've seen that;s not the case against some suspects. Now considering that we're dealing with a senior which has none of the listed implements listed, he used what was available to apprehend.

Now what the fire marshal did is/was totally justified and legal as far as apprehension. As for verbal threat - we've already addressed this and as for kicking the guy when he was down...........we were not privy to what totally transpired. While I do not condone striking a compliant offender, this could have been a "I said stay down", if the offender attempted to move or get up, instead of shooting the guy. Don't honestly know what transpired, just saying what if and attempting to show a possible different side to what was offered. I watched the video and saw the kick, but it was not like he was trying to kick a field goal. To me it was more of a stay down. Look at how long it took for this clown to respond to a gun in his face. If this was an active on duty uniformed officer, you most likely would have seen a hard takedown and then we most likely would be having another thread complaining about police brutality. The only other person that could have been remotely at chance of being hurt in this altercation was a guy on a cell phone, most likely 911-ing and he put himself in harms way if you will.

Now the gun here is a tool and it's up to individual to know and respect how and when to use said tool. The fire marshal, contrary to those that seeming have a problem with the use of that tool, used it correctly and again, it was the only tool available.  

Edited August 24, 2016 by disco111

[DaveP043]

The crime being committed was the sale of stolen property.  The sale could have been stopped by simply walking up and saying "Hey, those are my clubs, they were stolen this morning at ______ Golf Course"  Crime stopped.  

Use of deadly force to detain a thief,  in this case a person attempting to sell stolen goods, is unreasonable, given the nature of the crime.  The age or physical condition of the peace officer is no excuse to use excessive force.  If he can't make the arrest using procedures appropriate to the crime, he shouldn't try.  His duty is to take reasonable steps to apprehend, not any and all measures.  

It seems this thread is coming to a stalemate, one where a group feels Mr. Acree was totally justified in pulling his weapon to detain a thief, and another group that believes he was out of bounds doing that.  I'm going to make an effort to stop posting here, there just doesn't seem to be anything new to add until we hear more about the results of any prosecutions and/or firearm licensing reviews.

[14ledo81]

10 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

The crime being committed was the sale of stolen property.  The sale could have been stopped by simply walking up and saying "Hey, those are my clubs, they were stolen this morning at ______ Golf Course"  Crime stopped.  

Use of deadly force to detain a thief,  in this case a person attempting to sell stolen goods, is unreasonable, given the nature of the crime.  The age or physical condition of the peace officer is no excuse to use excessive force.  If he can't make the arrest using procedures appropriate to the crime, he shouldn't try.  His duty is to take reasonable steps to apprehend, not any and all measures.  

It seems this thread is coming to a stalemate, one where a group feels Mr. Acree was totally justified in pulling his weapon to detain a thief, and another group that believes he was out of bounds doing that.  I'm going to make an effort to stop posting here, there just doesn't seem to be anything new to add until we hear more about the results of any prosecutions and/or firearm licensing reviews.

 

I don't necessarily agree with this.  If the retired fire marshal was physically able (say 6'4'', 240) to retain the guy with his hands, I don't believe there would be any complaints.  What you are stating is that if you are not strong physically, to bad.  Physically strong people (in this instance) get their clubs back.  Physically weak people don't.

 

[DaveP043]

Just now, 14ledo81 said:

I don't necessarily agree with this.  If the retired fire marshal was physically able (say 6'4'', 240) to retain the guy with his hands, I don't believe there would be any complaints.  What you are stating is that if you are not strong physically, to bad.  Physically strong people (in this instance) get their clubs back.  Physically weak people don't.

We disagree.  The use or potential use of deadly force is excessive, when apprehending a thief.  Nobody was in danger of dying until the gun was pulled.  Nobody should ever be in danger of dying for theft.

[disco111]

Dave, your more than entitled to your viewpoint and beliefs, but the main crux of what not only you but others are not comprehending or perhaps just want to totally disregard, because it does not fit your agenda, is the fact that the marshal was duty bound to enforce an arrest and the only available resource tool available was his weapon. Hopefully you never get your home burglarized and especially when your at home asleep, because that thief and that's what he is a thief, just like the guy with the clubs, might just want to do you considerable harm if you encounter him. Now don't say it's two different examples, because it's not. A thief can and has turned into something a whole lot more violent many times and it's a 50/50 chance that either you or him will either go to a hospital or worse. So don't ever offer the "Nobody should ever be in danger of dying because of theft" BS. I'm sure they put that on the tomb stones of the poor folks that got car jacked and shot to death, because it was only a theft....................... that went wrong.