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

[Abu3baid]

1 hour ago, disco111 said:

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.  

Are you comparing what's considered a home invasion with "oh, he stole my clubs a few days ago" I'm going to take my frustration out by brandishing my wepon because I can, and then ill kick him in the head while I'm at it?

Just not even close.

[iacas]

@disco111, enough of the "not comprehending" bullshit please.

And please show me where a retired fire marshal is duty bound to intervene in a crime of this sort.

[DaveP043]

2 hours ago, disco111 said:

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,

Please clarify what you mean by my agenda?  I generally support the right to own firearms and use them responsibly, but in this case Mr. Acree was irresponsible and excessive.

2 hours ago, disco111 said:

, is the fact that the marshal was duty bound to enforce an arrest and the only available resource tool available was his weapon. 

I've never once disputed the concept that he had a duty to attempt to apprehend the thief.  But with that duty comes another one, the duty to use only the force appropriate to the situation. You seem to say that he should use whatever force is necessary to detain the thief, including deadly force.  For a nonviolent apparently unarmed individual, suspected of a nonviolent crime, the use, or threat, of deadly force is excessive.  If that's the only resource he had, he shouldn't have attempted the arrest.  If you can provide some type of reliable  reference, indicating that waving a gun around is a recommended option when trying to arrest an unarmed man suspected of theft, please let us all read it.  You might actually change my mind.

As for the last bit, an intruder in my house is VERY different from a suspected golf-club  thief walking through a parking lot.  

And last, before you insult the people on the other side of the argument any more, I don't disagree because I don't comprehend the meaning of what you've written.  I disagree that the use of the firearm was an appropriate level of force given the situation.

 

[JonMA1]

I agree that Acree put others in danger. And as I stated before, the laws regarding weapons and/or assault need to be enforced in this case.

And the rest of my statements only apply if he was fairly certain this guy was the thief (of which none of us knows the truth).

I don't care in the least that he threatened the guy's life or kicked him in the head. If I stole from someone, I would expect the same treatment. I promise you, most thieves know it's coming if they get caught by the wrong person.

As for leaving this up to the police to solve and retrieve the property... sorry, but that's naive. Go ahead and look the statistics up of recovered stolen property - excluding motor vehicles.

As for the police not using what some may view as excessive force... when someone is acting as this guy did, I don't believe they are very "gentle" with them. I don't think they can afford to be. They may be smart enough not to kick anyone, but they'll make sure those cuffs are on nice and tight.

I'd love to hear from a law enforcement officer - even if it meant my opinion was proven wrong. But because the rest of us have zero experience in apprehending a suspected criminal, none of us are qualified to do more than offer our stupid-ass opinions. It's a pissing contest of opposing views that will likely lead to the thread being closed.

There is no one way to act in this situation. You can think of yourselves as highly intelligent on one side of the argument, or Dirty Harry on the other. But this crap goes way beyond reason or ego. When faced with the situation, you either act, or you don't. And if you're going to act, you can't go halfway. Probably the best thing Acree could have done - once he pulled his weapon - was threaten the guy's life and leave no doubt (at least that's my stupid-ass opinion).

I wouldn't have done what he did and that's why I leave my weapons at home. But criminals love the fact that most of us are passive.

[burtonda]

I realize I'm way late in this thread, but I saw 2 good guys - the ones without guns that put themselves in harms way to try and prevent an enraged old man with a gun from killing a younger man who (allegedly) stole his golf clubs at some point in the past.  The dude that called the cops while right in the line of fire on top of the club stealer is the real hero here.  Without that good guy with a cell phone who knows wtf would have happened.

[Lihu]

2 hours ago, burtonda said:

I realize I'm way late in this thread, but I saw 2 good guys - the ones without guns that put themselves in harms way to try and prevent an enraged old man with a gun from killing a younger man who (allegedly) stole his golf clubs at some point in the past.  The dude that called the cops while right in the line of fire on top of the club stealer is the real hero here.  Without that good guy with a cell phone who knows wtf would have happened.

Yeah, the ex-marshal did go a bit overboard. Not sure if he would have really pulled the trigger or not, though. One thing for sure, the thief will think twice before attempting to steal club again. In fact, anyone reading the article might give it a second thought.

 

4 hours ago, JonMA1 said:

I wouldn't have done what he did and that's why I leave my weapons at home. But criminals love the fact that most of us are passive.

That's kind of true.

[Snipehook16]

A round in the 90s and forgetting to take your Zoloft will do that to a guy 

[70sSanO]

8 hours ago, disco111 said:

...but others are not comprehending or perhaps just want to totally disregard, because it does not fit your agenda,

Well I'll tell you my agenda.  I'm tired of the erosion of my 2nd Amendment rights.  When a retired fire marshal pulls a stunt like this, it only fuels the fire for more gun control.  And then when someone goes on the internet and compares these actions to Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns, it only hurts the rights of those people who are responsible gun owners; and I don't appreciate it.

John

[chilepepper]

Was the guy who had his clubs stolen a bit over the top? Yes. But society and government as a whole has become soft on crime. There are no enough cops to deal with this sort of crime beyond taking a report, they have bigger fish to catch. I don't find it surprizing that some people say " enough" and deal with the situation themselves even if it's harshly prior to the cops arriving. What is surprizing, and disgusting, is that the perp has a chance at a payday resulting from HIS decision to steal. A good azz whooping should be the least of his concerns. The thieves ought to be scared of the judicial system, which they are not.

[DaveP043]

8 hours ago, 70sSanO said:

 When a retired fire marshal pulls a stunt like this, it only fuels the fire for more gun control.  

For better or worse, incidents like this one have to be part of the discussion.  You can't regulate emotion, and in my view Mr. Acree's emotions got the better of him.  The mix of emotions and available firearms has caused lots of tragic incidents.

1 hour ago, chilepepper said:

 What is surprizing, and disgusting, is that the perp has a chance at a payday resulting from HIS decision to steal.

The thief's decision to steal the clubs certainly contributed, but there wouldn't be a chance of a "payday" without Mr. Acree's actions.  At some point a court may have to decide whether he went too far in his effort to detain the thief.  I'm sure his attorney's fees will far exceed the price he would have paid to replace his clubs, no matter how the lawsuit is decided.

[Joe92385]

19 hours ago, iacas said:

@disco111, enough of the "not comprehending" bullshit please.

And please show me where a retired fire marshal is duty bound to intervene in a crime of this sort.

I would also like to know the basis for that assertion.  Government actors (and I would dispute that a retired peace officer of any kind is a government actor, but let's assume he is) do not have a constitutional duty to provide any protective services:

Quote

Consistent with these principles, our cases have recognized that the Due Process Clauses generally confer no affirmative right to governmental aid, even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government itself may not deprive the individual. [citations]. As we said in Harris v. McRae: “Although the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause affords protection against unwarranted government interference ..., it does not confer an entitlement to such [governmental aid] as may be necessary to realize all the advantages of that freedom.” 448 U.S., at 317–318, 100 S.Ct., at 2688–2689. If the Due Process Clause does not require the State to provide its citizens with particular protective services, it follows that the State cannot be held liable under the Clause for injuries that could have been averted had it chosen to provide them. As a general matter, then, we conclude that a State's failure to protect an individual against private violence simply does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause.

(DeShaney v. Winnebago (1989) 489 U.S. 189, 196-197 [emphasis added].)  The exceptions are when there is a special relationship, or when it's a state-created danger.  Neither would apply here.

Of course, that analysis is under the 14th Amendment, and a state could impose affirmative duties on peace officers.  However, I would imagine that any state statute is probably phrased as granting the authority to make arrests, not imposing a duty - otherwise, the state would be exposing itself to an incredible amount of potential liability.  

Edited August 25, 2016 by Joe92385
Emphasis in quote.

[iacas]

3 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

The mix of emotions and available firearms has caused lots of tragic incidents.

You would have a really hard time quantifying that. Suicides would account for the vast majority and other studies show those people to be highly motivated.

Most gun crime - a TON - are criminals in cities shooting other criminals.

I don't support Acree's actions but I agree it's not anywhere near enough to change gun laws. He should lose his CCW but others should not.

Just as with the "taller advantage" topic Dave we can't put far reaching importance on one case.

[DaveP043]

1 minute ago, iacas said:

I don't support Acree's actions but I agree it's not anywhere near enough to change gun laws. He should lose his CCW but others should not.

I agree, I don't think this case should be anything but an individual case, and definitely not a reason to change any laws.  However, the temptation for legislators is to try to make things "idiot proof,"  or in this case "emotion proof."  This case is just one "data point" in a fast sea of statistics, but the impact of the video has the potential to give it far more influence than it deserves.  I should have said it is inevitable that this video would become part of the discussion, not that it necessarily deserved to be.

I think it ends up being the job of individual licensing boards to somehow try to assess each individual's ability to maintain the proper control of his emotions and behavior, and I have no ideas as to how to accomplish that any better than is being done right now.  Background checks can do part of the job, but they can't be perfect.  Certainly Mr. Acree's behavior should be a factor in whether he's going to continue to be allowed to carry a weapon in public.

[WUTiger]

On 8/23/2016 at 3:01 PM, DaveP043 said:

If you're going to arrest someone at gunpoint, even a "citizen's arrest", its probably a good idea to have more than "not that common" as evidence.

A local weekend radio show had a veteran police officer as a guest. (Show topic had nothing to do with stolen golf clubs.) The police officer suggested that citizen's arrests were risky, and that unless you encounter someone committing a violent felony, it's best to "take notes" and report the incident to police.

Also, I worked several years as a newspaper reporter, including. The cases I covered often reaffirmed the reason we have jury trials. One person often doesn't see or hear clearly what is going on. A trial compares the testimony of several witnesses, and the jury makes an after-the-fact judgment. Events included:

• A man who pulled a gun on a highway patrolman, but the case was dropped. The man had been sleeping alongside the road in his car at night, and the patrolman had startled him awake. The man was traveling more than one county from his home with a large amount of cash, so he was allowed to carry a concealed firearm (an unusual OKlahoma law).
• Another man was arrested for burglary when he hitchhiked in from the oilfield and couldn't find a place to stay. He broke into a storefront and slept on the floor, because external temps were near freezing. The prosecutor dropped the charges because he didn't have criminal intent (he had to pay for the broken window).

Final thought: The Tulsa police investigation will sort out - hopefully - what happened.

[DaveP043]

For what its worth, the linked news report has the most complete account of the incident I've read yet.  It includes a link to the complaint that the thief has filed against Mr. Acree.  I don't believe it provides any information that changes my opinions on the matter, but others may be interested in reading it.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/crimewatch/accused-golf-club-thief-files-complaint-against-retired-fire-marshal/article_fb1181b4-f7b1-54cf-8e30-2bfe3b8fb69e.html

[jkelley9]

My personal opinion(s):

- The guy, fire marshall or not, is clearly out of line and should have his license to carry revoked, period

- I absolutely hate thieves. Stealing is a terrible crime that costs the property owner to replace the items, typically at retail or whatever, but thieves pawn stuff for pennies on the dollar usually. Also, there is a TON of added cost to society as a whole to attempt to THWART thieves... it's just a bad situation. Stealing should have a very high level of consequence. This kid should go to jail for a decent period of time. 

- The kid is opening a lawsuit against the guy? Lol. I would love to write the name down of any lawyer that accepts that case. I feel like the kid is out of bounds legally on that one. I hope it costs him money in the end. Even though what the retired marshall did was plain wrong, I don't feel like he should be sued for it. The kid stole a lot of money from him.

- This is a bad rep for gun control. I get it. I get that the responsible gun owners are facepalming when reading stuff like this because it does make congress/politics want to move in the direction of more gun control. I feel like they should go the other way and if you pull a stunt like this... the consequences are to the extreme. 

- Back to the marshall being out of line; I would have been nearly fine with him just pulling the gun, having the kid detained by the other guy (he had his knee in his back for God's sake) and then PUTTING THE GUN DOWN AND SHUT UP. The fact that he did not (continued to point the gun at the kid) means he'd lost his marbles. Sure, he's mad, he's emotional, but he's a GOD-DA**** RETIRED FIRE MARSHALL. Keep your emotions in CHECK. That WAS a BIG PART of your JOB.

Overall though, I'm kind of glad the kid got what he had coming. I'm so sick and tired of the paranoia of someone stealing my stuff. It's such a headache. Like a wallet that I carry no cash in gets jacked and now I have to go through the ARDUOUS process of getting a new drivers license, cancelling all credit/bank cards, new insurance cards, and any other membership cards and whatnot. Such a pain in my ass. And the thief got nothing out of it.

[ghalfaire]

On 8/24/2016 at 10:34 PM, 70sSanO said:

Well I'll tell you my agenda.  I'm tired of the erosion of my 2nd Amendment rights.  When a retired fire marshal pulls a stunt like this, it only fuels the fire for more gun control.  And then when someone goes on the internet and compares these actions to Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns, it only hurts the rights of those people who are responsible gun owners; and I don't appreciate it.

John

Well said! 

[iacas]

5 hours ago, jkelley9 said:

- The kid is opening a lawsuit against the guy? Lol. I would love to write the name down of any lawyer that accepts that case. I feel like the kid is out of bounds legally on that one. I hope it costs him money in the end. Even though what the retired marshall did was plain wrong, I don't feel like he should be sued for it. The kid stole a lot of money from him.

You steal from me.

What's the limit to what I get to do to you, or your family, or whatever? How many laws do I get to break because you broke a law before me?

Two wrongs do not make a right.

This isn't a home invader suing a homeowner because they tripped on your living room carpet and broke their arm.