TexasCHLforum.com

AndyC wrote:Not Texas, but it's a good reminder

ROGER L. WITTER of Gresham, it was learned that he was inside the store and had witnessed the theft. Instead waiting for the Police to provide a witness statement he decided to chase the suspects outside with his gun in hand. He ran to the corner and observed the suspects trying to flee Southbound towards him on NW Ave towards NW Division. At this time he decided that he would try and "shoot out the tires". He fired two rounds towards the Northeast in direct line with the City Hall Max Stop & Park and Ride. By WITTER's own admission he never felt that his life or anyone else's life was in danger. He was just trying to detain the suspects for Police. WITTER was taken into custody and eventually transported to MCDC. His Concealed Weapons permit and his handgun were seized.

It is important to remember that no matter how frustrated one maybe with crime and the criminal justice system it is not permissible to use deadly force in this type of situation. Those two rounds could've gone anywhere, in fact we're still not sure where they went. They could've struck an innocent bystander or damaged property. Simply put it is not worth an innocent persons life to try and get an IPhone or any other piece of property back.

It was a couple of cell phones that were stolen from the store. Was he imagining that he was in a movie and thought he could shoot out the tires and save the day like you see in Hollywood?

And we wonder why "no one wants to get involved". This is going to be a costly reminder for the good samaritan. But he did forget what was taught in CHL class. Shoot to stop the threat. (No threat of bodily harm to him when he shot) Be aware of what is in your line of fire. (Sure hope no one turns up at the hospital with a GSW: even more costly lesson.) I'm sure AT&T was insured for their loss: but is he? More fodder for the Brady/anti-gun, anti- CC folks. Sigh

Just emphasizes why as much training a person can get that is going to carry a firearm means.

1) Having a CHL or carrying a firearm does not make you a LEO.

2) Deadly force is rarely if ever permissable against a fleeing suspect/criminal.

3) Ignorance is no defence of the law.

Sorry Mr. Witter, firing a firearm recklessly is a danger to everyone. What a danger to everyone! We are not here to enforce the laws.
I don't have much sympathy for a reckless shooter. They guy stealing the phones was no danger compared to the shooter.
This will not end well for Mr. Witter and it does not sound like he should be carrying a firearm.

Edit after seeing post that just came in while I was typing. Respectfully, this man is not a good Samaritan, he is a reckless and dangerous police wannabe and ninja.

dubya wrote:Edit after seeing post that just came in while I was typing. Respectfully, this man is not a good Samaritan, he is a reckless and dangerous police wannabe and ninja.

Oddly enough, the wife and I were watching a show last night and I pointed out that a bad guy was firing recklessly, with no concern for his sight picture or where the rounds might end up. She asked about CHLs and I (somewhat smugly) replied "We're taught to always consider these things before discharging a weapon." As seniorshooteress says, he's really let the side down.

Texas law provides more justifications for use of deadly force than the laws of any other state or country that I am aware of.

If you cannot honestly say that there was an immediate threat to your life or that of another person, you are walking on thin ice with hobnailed boots.

- Jim

If it had taken place in TX. I don't think his bail would be $10,000.00

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property

Personally, it would take more than a couple of punks stealing cell phones for me to open fire in public even if the law allowed.

The way that the police press release reads, the guy could be looking at a deadly conduct charge under Texas law -- shooting recklessly in the direction of an occupied structure or vehicle.

Those two rounds could've gone anywhere, in fact we're still not sure where they went.

I'm not faulting the guy for having good intentions, but he needed to think through the consequences of his actions.

I would also like Texans to remember that states where a Texas CHL holder has reciprocity have different deadly force laws. I see cases in the news all the time where someone in another state shot someone who was stealing a lawn gnome and got into legal trouble.

- Jim

HOLLYWOOD! -nuff said.

Just a reminder, Joe Horn was defending his life on his own property and still got a world of grief before exoneration .
Mr. Witter was in public. Good intentioned but playing LEO (who also do not get to shoot at fleeing criminals).

Hello from Orygun.....here is an excerpt from the gun laws here....
161.219

...a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:

(1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or

(2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or

(3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person.
Source(s):
http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/161.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Even tho Mr. Witter reasonably believed (saw) that persons were committing a burglary, he had no justification for attempting to stop or detain the suspects by firing at them. The "trying to shoot the tires out" is laughable only in that no one got hurt. Your absolute best target shooting at a range is at best only 50% in a real life, adrenaline rushed situation. Although Oregon, unlike Texas, is not a Castle Doctrine state, past judicial cases substatiate that it is a "no retreat" state. You can shoot a burgler in your house or at another premise but you cannot shoot a burgler who is in retreat.

Mr. Witter did not learn what he was taught in his required Oregon gun law & safety class in obtaining his CHL. AND will make the rest of us nationwide look bad.

dubya wrote:Just a reminder, Joe Horn was defending his life on his own property and still got a world of grief before exoneration .
Mr. Witter was in public. Good intentioned but playing LEO (who also do not get to shoot at fleeing criminals).

Second time I've seen the "playing LEO" statement. Not to be a ninny but I know very few if any LEOs that would draw on and shoot at a fleeing theft suspect.

sooeey2u wrote:Hello from Orygun.....








Even tho Mr. Witter reasonably believed (saw) that persons were committing a burglary, he had no justification for attempting to stop or detain the suspects by firing at them. The "trying to shoot the tires out" is laughable only in that no one got hurt.

Mr. Witter did not learn what he was taught in his required Oregon gun law & safety class in obtaining his CHL. AND will make the rest of us nationwide look bad.

I recall a story not long ago where a Texan let the air out of a couple of burglars looting his neighbor’s house. It was all caught on the 911 tape. They were unarmed and fleeing the seen in broad daylight. Although he was arrested, all charges were eventually dropped.

Shame on all of you for not taking into account that the burglars were making off with iPhones, not some lame Droids or Blackberrys. I hear iPhone users every day claim "My life is in that phone." That means this poor guy was defending someone elses' lives...

Oh, wait; they were new iPhones, which means users hadn't infused them with their living essences yet...back to the drawing board. (This is why I never passed the BAR (exam or establishment, either one).