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

[stealthhwk]

9 hours ago, Elmer said:

 

What happens when a good guy with a gun, mistakes the other good guy with a guy for just another bad guy with a guy?
Does it become a mexican stand off?

A scary thing thats a real valid point. Hopefully, any armed good guy surveys the situation very carefully before involving ones self. Its a situation with no margin for error. Same thing for law enforcement arriving on the scene. Have to survey the situation rapidly and effectively. Sadly, its a situation with zero margin for error. 

[bweiss711]

4 minutes ago, DrvFrShow said:

Acree did not kick Montgomery in the head with his cleats.

I don't own guns, and I don't know much about carry laws. That being said I don't have a problem with the 2nd amendment and in my experience, people who own guns are the most aware and law abiding citizens I know when it comes to guns.  That coupled with this Acree's duty as an officer of the peace or whatever, makes me give him the benefit of the doubt when it comes to his use of the gun in this situation.

However, he absolutely did kick the guy in the head when he was on the ground. Watch the video again around the 1:12-1:14 mark. As the camera goes behind the car, you can see him wind back his leg and then as the camera gets back in view, you see Montgomery holding his head. This is where Acree crosses the line from dutiful citizen to absusive assailant. 

[ghalfaire]

19 hours ago, CarlSpackler said:

That was not the case in Ohio, and I believe it is not the case here in Florida. A guy I know had his truck stolen. He found it up the street, pulled a gun on the guy and called the police. They showed up, thanked him, and arrested the thief. 

I know the "gun laws" vary some from state to state and certainly police officers have some latitude on who they ticket, arrest, or let go.  So not being familiar with the story I don't have a comment.  But in general you're not permitted to use lethal force to defend your property.  There has to be some threat to your or someone else's physical well being.  If this threat isn't deemed present then you cannot pull out your gun and threaten and detain someone with it because they are stealing your things.

BTW you're not permitted to fire a warning shot, at least not in Arizona, as you are responsible for where the bullet goes and what it does and you better be aiming at someone threatening you or someone else  if you choose to use your weapon.   

I think I'll make a final comment here on this as I have read many, maybe most, of the posts.  There seems to be a pervasive ignorance on when you can use or threaten lethal force and when you cannot use or threaten lethal force.  I would highly recommend that if you're going to carry a weapon (which includes things other than guns) that you take the CCW course in your state.  It is the best way to know what the law is in your state relating to weapons (again, which is not limited to guns and you might be carrying a weapon and not know it).

OK, I'm finished.  

[newtogolf]

Again, I haven't seen anyone suggest how a 59 year old man detains a 24 year old without some threat of force.  If he smashed his knee with a bat or golf club would that have been more acceptable?  How about if he pulled a knife instead of a gun?

The criminal is a dirt bag that deserves to be locked up in jail.  If the hero didn't pull his gun there's zero chance the criminal waits around for the cops to show up.  

No one got hurt, the guy will go to jail and the hero will get his clubs back, I'd say it's a happy ending.  

[70sSanO]

Yeah but...

...they were a brand new set of PXG's and the old guy didn't even break 100 with them... lol!

John

[DaveP043]

13 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

No one got hurt, the guy will go to jail and the hero will get his clubs back, I'd say it's a happy ending.  

The "hero" may get his clubs back, but his apparently out-of-control actions may cause him to lose his legal authority to carry a firearm.  I think most of us expect a much higher degree of self-control from our law enforcement officers.  

Sadly, things like this tend to reinforce the positions of those at the more extreme ends of the gun rights debate.  On one side, the "dirt bag" would never have been brought to justice without the presence of the gun.  On the other side, the nut-job "old man"  was out of control, and endangered everyone within 100 yards or more (including himself) by pulling a gun on someone he merely suspected of theft.  

[newtogolf]

13 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

The "hero" may get his clubs back, but his apparently out-of-control actions may cause him to lose his legal authority to carry a firearm.  I think most of us expect a much higher degree of self-control from our law enforcement officers.  

Sadly, things like this tend to reinforce the positions of those at the more extreme ends of the gun rights debate.  On one side, the "dirt bag" would never have been brought to justice without the presence of the gun.  On the other side, the nut-job "old man"  was out of control, and endangered everyone within 100 yards or more (including himself) by pulling a gun on someone he merely suspected of theft.  

He never fired the gun, for all we know, he never took the safety off the gun, so you can't with certainty say he endangered anyone.  He used the gun as a threat to detain the criminal to avoid a physical confrontation.  

Again, would he have been justified smashing his knee with a bat or choking him unconscious?    

[DaveP043]

2 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

He never fired the gun, for all we know, he never took the safety off the gun, so you can't with certainty say he endangered anyone.  He used the gun as a threat to detain the criminal to avoid a physical confrontation.  

As others have mentioned, a passing policeman, seeing some guy acting crazy and aiming a pistol at someone else, may have shot the guy with the gun, protecting the lives of the bystanders.  Another law-abiding gun-carrying bystander could have done the same thing.  The thief could have a gun, and "protected" himself with it.  He could have tripped and fired the gun accidentally.  He did kick the thief after the thief was down, so his self-control was obviously hanging by a thread, he could have actually shot the kid if he hadn't complied.   As soon as he pulled the gun, he escalated the situation, made it more dangerous.  To me, pulling the gun over the theft of golf clubs is a severe over-reaction, severely bad judgement.  The actual result is the best possible way this all could have ended once he pulled the gun, but there are a million ways it could have been worse.

[DrvFrShow]

6 hours ago, ghalfaire said:

I know the "gun laws" vary some from state to state and certainly police officers have some latitude on who they ticket, arrest, or let go.  So not being familiar with the story I don't have a comment.  But in general you're not permitted to use lethal force to defend your property.  There has to be some threat to your or someone else's physical well being.  If this threat isn't deemed present then you cannot pull out your gun and threaten and detain someone with it because they are stealing your things.

BTW you're not permitted to fire a warning shot, at least not in Arizona, as you are responsible for where the bullet goes and what it does and you better be aiming at someone threatening you or someone else  if you choose to use your weapon.   

I think I'll make a final comment here on this as I have read many, maybe most, of the posts.  There seems to be a pervasive ignorance on when you can use or threaten lethal force and when you cannot use or threaten lethal force.  I would highly recommend that if you're going to carry a weapon (which includes things other than guns) that you take the CCW course in your state.  It is the best way to know what the law is in your state relating to weapons (again, which is not limited to guns and you might be carrying a weapon and not know it).

OK, I'm finished.  

Washington is a "Stand Your Ground" state. Here's the law for the free state of Washington: “No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.”

So in Washington I could use a firearm to protect my personal property if I deemed it necessary. At my age and given the likely age of the person attempting to steal it, a firearm would be the equalizer.

[disco111]

Double exclusion if the gun was not present. 1) Old man has no way to stop said thief and thief goes on his merry way and still has the stolen items.........2) Old man attempts to physically restrain and gets his butt whipped and possibly gets worse and winds up in the hospital or worse. Both scenarios only favor the bad guy, who is a bad guy because he has no regard or remorse for anyone else. Police would have only taken a report, if they showed up in a fairly timely manner. But if dispatch forwards a call of man with a gun or in this case officer holding at gun point, the response is immediate. Officers arrive and see someone on the ground and someone holding a firearm at said grounded person, the first thing they do is order the one holding the gun to place said weapon on the ground and put their hands up, seeing that everyone is in civilian clothes. They have a decent starting point via dispatch and visual observations that they are not in any serious danger, but will still take those precautions, for everyone's safety.

Now did the old man kind of loose his cool and over reacted verbally..........yes, but as I stated prior, it's very doubtful that fire marshals, even though they go through LE training, have had many if any instances of this kind of an arrest. 

Now the following is just my overall opinion on the state of affairs in the USA. Crime is rising greatly, just watch the news, police are responsive not pro active, so that leaves the individual to take care of themselves and others, until such time as the police do arrive. We had a problem in this country of folks in general not wanting to get involved, but we're seeing more and more (right or wrong) of people taking a stand and doing for themselves. I think this attitude will only increase because people are tired and fed up with seeing the bad guys getting the best of it. There's an old saying, "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing"..............      

[mcanadiens]

5 minutes ago, disco111 said:

Now the following is just my overall opinion on the state of affairs in the USA. Crime is rising greatly, just watch the news, police are responsive not pro active, so that leaves the individual to take care of themselves and others, until such time as the police do arrive. We had a problem in this country of folks in general not wanting to get involved, but we're seeing more and more (right or wrong) of people taking a stand and doing for themselves. I think this attitude will only increase because people are tired and fed up with seeing the bad guys getting the best of it. There's an old saying, "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing"..............  

This is well put.

Do something or be a victim. Your choice.

[newtogolf]

8 minutes ago, disco111 said:

Double exclusion if the gun was not present. 1) Old man has no way to stop said thief and thief goes on his merry way and still has the stolen items.........2) Old man attempts to physically restrain and gets his butt whipped and possibly gets worse and winds up in the hospital or worse. Both scenarios only favor the bad guy, who is a bad guy because he has no regard or remorse for anyone else. Police would have only taken a report, if they showed up in a fairly timely manner. But if dispatch forwards a call of man with a gun or in this case officer holding at gun point, the response is immediate. Officers arrive and see someone on the ground and someone holding a firearm at said grounded person, the first thing they do is order the one holding the gun to place said weapon on the ground and put their hands up, seeing that everyone is in civilian clothes. They have a decent starting point via dispatch and visual observations that they are not in any serious danger, but will still take those precautions, for everyone's safety.

Now did the old man kind of loose his cool and over reacted verbally..........yes, but as I stated prior, it's very doubtful that fire marshals, even though they go through LE training, have had many if any instances of this kind of an arrest. 

Now the following is just my overall opinion on the state of affairs in the USA. Crime is rising greatly, just watch the news, police are responsive not pro active, so that leaves the individual to take care of themselves and others, until such time as the police do arrive. We had a problem in this country of folks in general not wanting to get involved, but we're seeing more and more (right or wrong) of people taking a stand and doing for themselves. I think this attitude will only increase because people are tired and fed up with seeing the bad guys getting the best of it. There's an old saying, "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing"..............      

Well said and exactly how I feel.  While the fire marshals reaction may have been a bit over the top, the alternative was allowing the criminal to get away with a crime.  

Police do not pursue robberies of that size, they write reports and allow you to fight with your insurance company to get reimbursed.  

[DaveP043]

18 minutes ago, DrvFrShow said:

Washington is a "Stand Your Ground" state. Here's the law for the free state of Washington: “No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.”

So in Washington I could use a firearm to protect my personal property if I deemed it necessary. At my age and given the likely age of the person attempting to steal it, a firearm would be the equalizer.

I think the difference in this case is that he wasn't protecting anything, his clubs had already been stolen, a day earlier if I remember right.  He was trying to recover what he thought was his property.  Based on my reading, this type of law would have protected a passing gun-carrying stranger who decided to come to the aid of a young man lying on the ground, while another man screamed and pointed a gun at him.

[drmevo]

49 minutes ago, disco111 said:

Now the following is just my overall opinion on the state of affairs in the USA. Crime is rising greatly, just watch the news,

The thing is, there are statistics to measure this stuff, and crime is actually down, by a lot, if you go back several decades and look at the trend.  I think we just tend to feel like everything is worse due to the portrayal in the media and the prevalence of media in our lives.

Edited August 19, 2016 by drmevo

[mcanadiens]

10 minutes ago, drmevo said:

The thing is, there are statistics to measure this stuff, and crime is actually down, by a lot, if you go back several decades and look at the trend.  I think we just tend to feel like everything is worse due to the portrayal in the media and the prevalence of media in our lives.

I'll take your word for the national stats. The local ones are more important. Dayton's filled with the drug-addled. They'll steal anything they think they can turn into heroin. I'm lucky enough to live in a decent neighborhood. Friends of mine aren't so lucky.

[ghalfaire]

1 hour ago, DrvFrShow said:

Washington is a "Stand Your Ground" state. Here's the law for the free state of Washington: “No person in the state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting by any reasonable means necessary, himself or herself, his or her family, or his or her real or personal property, or for coming to the aid of another who is in imminent danger of or the victim of assault, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, rape, murder, or any other violent crime as defined in RCW 9.94A.030.”

So in Washington I could use a firearm to protect my personal property if I deemed it necessary. At my age and given the likely age of the person attempting to steal it, a firearm would be the equalizer.

Well I thought I was finished.  AZ is also a stand your ground state.  But here that means that you don't have to run away or back up if someone threatens you.  But it doesn't give you the right to shoot someone you catch stealing from you unless they threaten you.  What threaten means is not always as clear as it might be sometimes.  But if you shoot someone in the back as they run away with your golf clubs you're probably going to be facing a manslaughter charge.   At least here.

[Dave2512]

Judging the responses I doubt many here have taken any CCW classes beyond the requisite for getting a permit, if they have one, which is no deeper than studying to get a driving permit. So yeah some self defense training and tactical classes would be a good idea for those that feel there may be a time when they have to enter a situation like this. Maybe even consider martial arts so you don't feel the need to reach for a gun when confronting non-violent club thieves.

That said no amount of this or that didn't happen justifies what the guy did. We're talking golf clubs here not someone snatching your kid. Just because the situation didn't escalate doesn't mean it couldn't have. You must ask yourself what is the risk to recover stolen golf clubs by brandishing a gun, what is the potential danger. If he runs and a chase ensues you may have speeding vehicles, unsuspecting customers visiting adjacent stores could be injured etc. Because you feel reporting it to the police may lead to nothing you still have to weigh the risk because this won't be the result every time. There is no good guy in this story no matter what happened, the guy with the gun was reckless.

[Joe92385]

Out of curiosity, let's set aside both the law and the specifics of the video for a minute. Reduce it to this hypothetical: you are at a golf course, armed, and notice that someone else has your stolen property (and you are certain it's yours).  You can't detain the thief hand-to-hand.  Do you draw your gun to detain him?

Of those who would answer (or already have answered) yes, how many actually carry a firearm?

I'm not trying to make a point here, I'm genuinely curious how people think they would react.

Edit after reading @Dave2512's post: I'm curious about answers disregarding the rationale evaluation of consequences that we can do from behind a keyboard - try to put yourself in that situation mentally, and consider what your real-world reaction would be.

Edited August 19, 2016 by Joe92385