Posted on 08/06/2009 4:43:42 AM PDT by marktwain
A Tennessee man has been charged with assault for shooting a burglar he caught leaving his neighbor's home.
According to a report in The Kingsport Times-News, Dennis McClanahan, 52, caught Dustin Eads, 29, breaking in to a neighbor's mobile home trailer. McClanahan had called 911 to report the break-in when he saw Eads exit the trailer. McClanahan confronted Eads at gunpoint and attempted to hold him for police.
Eads reportedly went for the gun and a struggle ensued during which McClanahan struck him in the head with the handgun. Eads broke free and attempted to flee in his vehicle, while McClanahan tried to shoot out the tires. One round also shot out the back window of the vehicle.
Later, a second 911 call came in from Eads' wife, reporting her husband had been shot in the chest, though reports indicate the chest wound may have been an exit wound with the round initially impacting Eads in the back.
Sullivan County District Attorney Greeley Wells, who is handling the case, notes that under Tennessee law, deadly force may only be used in self-defense. He did note that police officers are only permitted to shoot at fleeing suspects if "they have reasonable grounds to believe that a violent felony has been committed and that it would be dangerous to let that person escape" and that this exemption "would probably also apply to civilians" and that there are many other factors to consider.
“The bottom line is that self-defense is a very complicated area of the law, and you can make some broad, general statements about it, but most self-defense cases are very fact-specific," he said. "And the only way to determine whether or not there is justification is for the jury to make that determination.”
Eads is currently listed as being in fair condition at a local hospital while burglary charges are pending against him.
This case is interesting due to the many factors involved. Was McClanahan's attempt at a citizen's arrest proper or should he have let Eads escape unharmed to burglarize or rob another home? Did McClanahan know his neighbor wasn't at home at the time or was he fearful her life may have been in danger? Did Eads escalate the situation into a justifiable self-defense situation when he tried to take McClanahan's gun? Did his willingness to attack an armed man demonstrate a danger to the public by allowing him to escape?
The bottom line is that these questions will need to be answered by a jury, yet it was the criminal who was harmed and not an innocent civilian. To me, that is a check in the win column.
Based on the information presented here, I know how I would vote if I was on that jury...
same here.
I simply don't agree with shooting at someone who is running away with a TV. Sure, he needs to be locked up, maybe even beaten about the head and shoulders. But you can't just go shooting at people who are not a physical threat to you… I certainly wouldn’t shoot at a tire with anything but a shotgun. The results are wildly unpredictable as you can gather from this story. Even a 44 mag will deflect off of them.
Maybe I'm getting too soft in my old age, I dunno...,
Except that now he may end up paying this criminal a lot of money...
Why? The police do it at times.
A good place to aim is at the radiator of the car. That limits the range of attempted escape, and marks the car nicely.
When the perp went for the gun, all bets were off. For all the citizen knew, the crook could have been going to get his own gun. As a member of the jury, I would vote to acquit the public-spirited citizen.
As recounted, the circumstances seem a little unclear. And much will depend on whether they turn out to have known each other, whether the defendant has a record himself, etc.
A judge around here said, "Jurors are the best doctors of doubt."
Consider that before statutory law, there was a body of common law in England that placed defense of property right up there with defense of person. One was authorized to take whatever action to protect one’s property from a thief...
Fast forward to present day, where there is a whole section of society that just can’t stand the accumulation of wealth and individual liberty...and they actively litigate to “level the playing field” in pursuit of “social justice.”
I’ll give you three guesses and the first two don’t count as to how the law has “evolved” to it’s current state...
I’ll also tell you that a lot of case law and statutes just don’t make sense to “common folk” - whom I like to call “normal people” - yet make perfect sense to my legal brethren.
No I agree. Most of the time cops can’t even shoot fleeing felons if they are not a direct threat. The time to have shot him is when he went for the weapon.
The attitude that you should give criminals every advantage is prevalent here (in South Jersey). I’m a bit surprised to see it in Tennessee.
Not Guilty, should never have been charged
I crook was a dem - just wanted his “piece of the pie” - figured stealing it was easier than working for it...
The problem here is typical: TOO MUCH TALKING BY THE GOOD GUY!!!
“He fought for my gun, I feared for my life.”
Waiting until the car is speeding away, to shoot is the other mistake.
You hold the guy at gunpoint OUT OF REACH!
When he comes within reach, HE’S AN IMINENT THREAT, WITH MOTIVE, MEANS, AND OPPORTUNITY!
Q: What does a person give to buy a TV?
A: Money.
Q: What does a person give to earn money?
A: A part of their life via work.
A person who steals another’s property steals that part of their life that they worked for that object. That is slavery and can, in my opinion, be ethically fought with force.
My TV is worth more than the life of a lowlife thief that would try to steal it. I don't have a problem with shooting someone running away with any of my property.
Unfortunately, the law does have a problem with it and so I would choose to let them run in this case.
On the other hand, were I on the jury of such a case, I would definately consider a "not guilty" verdict for such a shot. I can't change the law, but I can vote my conscience.
It all headed south when we quit hanging horse theives and started electing them to congress.
I happen to think that chosing to be a criminal should be a hazardous choice. The more hazardous the better....
hh
It will depend upon how many cousins the perp or the defendant have on that jury.
The problem I have here is not in shooting criminals on principle. It’s that shooting at a fleeing car is inherently dangerous to others besides criminals. Bullets can miss, they can ricochet and they travel much farther than many people realize. I know I will catch flack for this but I think it’s better to let him get away than risk shooting an innocent third party.
Amen to that!
Better tried by twelve than carried by six.
I absolutely agree with shooting someone dead when they are stealing your property.
Material possessions represent hours of your life required in obtaining said possessions.
Besides, it is the criminal who is deciding that his life is worth less than a TV set, not the person stopping them (permanently)....
“This is fairly rural East Tennessee. I think the jury will do the right thing.”
I believe you are right. I called that region home for many years - my family is still there. Where I was raised, there were really 2 sets of laws. What was on the books, and what the community believed and lived. The 2 didn’t always jibe - but with the exception of making moonshine or growing pot, we had very little crime. Regardless of what the law is - the defendant will most likely get what is coming to him, good or bad. Most of us hillbillies don’t really care what the gov’t. says - but we do know right from wrong, and that is the standard we apply.-—JM
I'm related to most of NE Alabama and NW Georgia one way or another. Within 4 degrees, I know who the bad actors are and aren't. Some of my cousins I would just nod and say, "Yup. He had it comin'."
Of course, that was back in the late 1700s and early 1800s . . . . they were all firmly established in Cherokee County by 1820.
But in this case, he wasn’t defending HIS property, because the guy broke into his neighbor’s house. That might make a difference. Also, if the car was already driving away, it will be difficult for the shooter to argue he still was afraid for his life.
Now, if the burglar said something to him like, “I’m going to kill you”, he should be OK, he could argue that he was afraid the guy would go home, get a gun, and come back, so he wanted to make sure the burglar didn’t escape because he feared for his own family.
Unless you live in Texas. God Bless Joe Horn!
I dislike the thought of having to attend another four hours of classroom for my CCW but here in Texas, they did try to teach the fundamentals.
Being “in fear of your life” or other’s lives allows deadly force. Telliing the officer or Grand Jury you were in fear for your life will keep you out of jail and financial ruin.
“Shoot until the threat is over” is one that will keep anyone out of jail.
Anyone stopping a crime with a gun better know that’s what they are doing.
Agree, and I will state again that there should be an “Open Season Doctrine” on thugs ho go for guns or who use them in violent attacks.
People trying to do the right thing are held to too high a standard when confronting violent criminals, as they are held to none.
Agree 1000%.
People who say “it’s only things” do not understand that point.
Joe Horn argued in court that he felt he was in fear for his life as the thief approached him. Lucky for him, it worked in his favor.
There are a lot of new firearms owners because of obambi and they really should take a firearms course whether their state demands it or not.
Stopping a street thug and then letting the court thugs take your life away isn’t my idea of justice.
You’re letting your brain take over your emotions. I don’t think that’s allowed on the internet.
Shame on you. [s]
In our state, the law is clear. You are only allowed to defend if there is the fear of bodily harm or loss of human life only.
TN may be different.
I have a very narrow description of what a self-defense firearm should be used for. I won't pull the trigger on another man unless I feel like I or my family (or even another person in my general vicinity) is in serious physical danger. Maybe's count too... a crook digging at his waistband = pull the trigger.
However, if I caught someone running from my house with a mere physical belonging, I simply can't justify shooting a man dead over it... regardless how much I may think I want that at the moment; I know I don’t want to live with it for the next few decades. It has nothing to do with what the law says I can get by with. Worthless dirtbag or not, life is precious in my eyes and I know God views it the same way. Lay one finger on one of my kids and the rules change quickly. I’ve been is a situation only one time in my life where I drew a loaded gun on a person. As big, bad and ugly as I think I am, it was the scariest thing I’ve ever experienced in my life. I’ve conditioned myself best I can to not have to think too much if it ever happens again, I know I am ready to do it if it has to be done.
I’m just not much of a “cowboy” because I stood on that line one time and have thought many times about the consequences of pulling that trigger had I done it. Turns out I made the right choice, a drunk wandered into my house at 3:30AM, forced open the front door, knocking over lamps in my living room. He literally wet himself when he came to the realization that I was there and had a bead on his forehead (I’m all about the surprise defense tactic, you’ll never hear a “freeze” or “drop it” from me before I shoot).
I know others view it different, but that's just my humble opinion and my own personal approach. Call me soft ifya want, I just try to be honest with myself about how I feel on this subject.
You have the right mindset. Not only do you have the right attitude to stay alive in a shootout but you also have the ability to save yourself before it goes to a courtroom.
Anyone thinking a TV is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in lawyer’s fees should hand the gun over to another family member. That may not be justice in someone’s eyes but it is reality.
Guys...I’m just pointing out how the law got to where it is.
Not saying I agree with the state of the law, I don’t.
Also not saying I would ignore the law, I wouldn’t.
Not calling anyone soft, either.
Absolutely and I’m in complete agreement. There are a lot of newcomers to the shooting sports who have no idea what the law is. It’s nice to step into a gunshop and walk out with the old hogleg on your hip but if someone doesn’t take even a second to know what the law is, they are begging for trouble.
It would be nice to live under justice but we live under laws. I haven’t seen too much justice lately.
Me too, based on what's presented. A more interesting question is: If you were on the grand jury, would you vote to indict? For me, I think I'd need more information to say. The questions at the end of the OP are all quite good and relevant.
Good on ya for your restraint in shooting and your restraint in announcing your presence before shooting.
Exactly. That is why it is completely moral to kill a thief caught in the act. I have long argued the same basic concept as a way to look at what the government is reall taking from you when they tax you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.