Skip to comments.Auto dealer owner shoots teen who tries to steal car, deputies say
Posted on 05/29/2014 4:49:29 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
Detectives say Jonas Charles ambushed teens who returned to lot after stealing keys....
Instead of waiting for authorities to arrive, Charles took the law into his own hands and ignored the 15-year-old's plea not to shoot him, detectives said.
Charles then chased the wounded teen, yelling at him and firing another shot while on the phone with a BSO dispatcher, detectives said.
(Excerpt) Read more at local10.com ...
He’s deservedly going to the hooskow
What are friends for? If they're not ready to take the fall for attempted murder, what good are they? What a blockhead.
He should have blamed the previous dealership administration.
Works for Bammy.
in another era, the owner of property would be given a medal for protecting it from vermin.
This guy is way off the deep end. He and the teen burglars all need to be prosecuted for their misdeeds.
Clear cut case where shooting the perp was the WRONG thing to do. Belongs in jail.
The responsibility of arming one's self for self defense and defense of property includes having sound judgement and knowing when NOT to shoot.
The kids were punks for being thieves.
But chasing one that was wounded, unarmed, and shooting him (I assume)in the back? What a d*ck move on his part.
I notice the Auto Dealer didn’t shoot any dogs in apprehending the thieves, so there is that.
too many jailhouse lawyers here at FR...they came with stolen keys to steal cars in his lot, they deserved what they got....and more
Comments such as yours are the reason why the Second Amendment is constantly under attack. Keep it up if you wish to continue subverting our rights.
I am a real lawyer.
You can’t shoot someone for stealing a car
“Clear cut case where shooting the perp was the WRONG thing to do. Belongs in jail.
The responsibility of arming one’s self for self defense and defense of property includes having sound judgement and knowing when NOT to shoot.”
I initially misread your comment and was about to state that the pursuit, and shooting at the wounded teen would certainly damn the shooter, then I caught myself. Agreed. This guy was screwed the second he fired on someone w/o his life being in danger. A decade ago, in another life, I had to review a Michigan Appeals case in which a man defended his life (expending all ammunition in the process), then proceeded to reload his firearm and give chase. The acts of reloading and pursuit is what legally damned him, as they showed rational thought and premeditation for what followed.
And therein lies the problem.
He didn’t lie. The circumstances changed. #obama
Question here for a REAL lawyer(s) ...
You as a credit card holder call the credit card company to dispute a charge. As you sit waiting for a live person to answer you hear a recording say, this call may or is being taped ... You are not asked if that is ok as it is a recording. 15 minutes later in the conversation you tell the CC rep that you too are taping the call, since they are taping it. The rep says you can’t and you do not have their permission to tape it — rep will not give you their name and hangs up.
Since when has this become a one-way world? A company has a right that you do not?
My take is the minute you are advised by the party you are calling that they are taping, you are in-turn granted that right to tape it yourself. PERIOD.
A lawyers take would be nice here. I am in Florida.
On the flip side, there are also too many "thumbs down and die because you pissed me off" types here too. When theft becomes a death-penalty crime, we will know we have lost all and will never regain Freedom as the Founders set it up for us. Life is precious. Carrying a weapon for protection entails responsibilities to not get stupid and kill without need. When cops do it, we get pissed. When car dealers do it, we make excuses. No wonder so many here think the Constitution is being subverted by the Left, but also manage to find their own pet "noble cause clauses" when it suits.
” took the law into his own hands “
What do the “authorities” think will happen when they eschew their proper role of protecting the lives and property of the law-abiding?
(and instead look on them as “them” and as a group to be milked of every last cent possible)
What about Texas?
Horse thievery used be a short term job occupation.
Here in Washington State you can. Although this punk had already ceased trying to steal this car, so it was a bad shoot.
that’s hilarious, good for you, yes you can tape it and if the doofus objects, tell them you want to talk to the supervisor and keep going up the line. Anyone who hangs up on you, report
the reason they tape them, or say they are taping them is because people get so upset dealing these customer service reps they cuss them out and might not cuss them out if they think they are being taped.
Shoot first, ask questions later.
Like, “How many years will I be in prison?”
disclaimer: I am not your lawyer, check with your own state, you should advise that you are taping, etc., this is not legal advice, and so on
(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;"
The law isn't the same in all states.
Guess he could have killed both of the little thieves and said he didn’t know who did the shooting. Or, he could have just held the kids until the cops arrived.
He was definitely not thinking straight.
You cant shoot someone for stealing a car.
Under the particular circumstances cited here, I understand. But wouldn't there be exceptions?
Such as you stopping to help someone on a deserted highway and they jack your car?
Same thing in an inner city full of feral animals? (Though I would never stop in such circumstances)
On a city street at a stoplight?
Defenseless passengers in your car?
I remember in the '70s, a friend from Texas said it was legal to shoot someone who was messing with their trot lines.
It seems that the teens never made it to the "getting away with the property" part. IMO, just because you can get away with it isn't a good reason to kill someone who doesn't need to be killed - it gets abused by citizens and LEOs alike; we just get more upset when LEOs do it.
... it had already escalated past 1 reps to a second supervisor. It was a super that denied me and hung up. I couldn’t understand the first sup and insisted on a person I could understand. This was a Visa account at Fidelity Investments. I have really lost most of my respect for that big Fidelity outfit, they must locate the duffusses in this CC dept.
One can tell alot from accents and poor diction.
Things certainly changed in South Florida after Gov. Bob Graham appointed Janet Reno to Attorney General.
(and instead look on them as them and as a group to be milked of every last cent possible)
Exactly. For the most part, it was the vigilantes of the old west who brought law and order to the frontier.
In a number of cases, law and order got involved quite late, quite reluctantly and only, finally, when the vigilantism got out of hand.
Even in the case of the famous Judge Isaac Parker, he stated that the law was applied fairly, swiftly and harshly to ensure that vigilantism did not return.
in Texas you can. on your property. A repo man went into someone’s car port to hook up a wrecker to take back a car in Texas. the repo man was shot dead. the property owner was exonerated.
Two wrongs here...the teens for trying to steal cars and the dealer. Jail them both...
Some friend that tries to blame you for his deeds.
I guess it depends on where you are and how much you like your car? Myself, I can’t see myself doing that, unless I was in 2 hours in the bush working and someone tries to make off with my truck. That could make my situation life threatening heh.
You most certainly can shoot someone for stealing a car. The problem is that prosecutors tend to frown on that behavior.
Unless the shooter can convince a skeptical cop and prosecutor, and a potentially more sympathetic jury, that he could have reasonably believed his life was in danger, it may not go well. As for a guy who can’t settle in advance on whether he shot the thief or a friend did, he’s not going to make a convincing case for self-defense, even if he has my full sympathy.
Actually the reason they give for taping the calls is so they can better train and counsel reps on how to handle difficult situations. FWIW
news to me, that they do any training whatsoever
I have actually asked these “personnel” why they are in customer service if they don’t like helping people
so johnny, you get that robbery is by force? that stealing is not robbery? what you cited does not allow anyone to shoot someone for stealing a car
Protection of self or others would be a much better argument
yes there have been times I couldn’t understand people’s English and I have demanded to speak with someone I could understand
Fine him $10. He can mail it in.
don’t tell them you are recording.
the company already said this conversation may be recorded, did not say by whom(*), you just are using the fact that it was already mentioned that the call may be recorded.
*unless the recorded message states WHOM is doing the recording, you, in my estimation, are golden.
In TX, it looks like this would cover the situation. Even if they didn't have a stolen car, the thugs presumably still had the stolen keys, at night. I don't have a problem with laws that allow shooting the vermin who make life harder for decent people who are barely getting by. Even if insurance "covers" the theft, it doesn't cover the increased insurance rates due to a high crime neighborhood.
It's not just robbery.
I’ve worked building inspections in several of these “customer service” facilities, including a couple outside the US.
They have high turnover, and are always running training programs. Not necessarily effective ones, of course.
I agree with you. People make mistakes, especially young people...if the felony is stealing a car the context is obvious, no need to hunt and kill. It is not justified. Breaking into somebody’s home is different, you don’t know what the intent is. This hard-line “they deserve to die” for anything attitude is troubling...it is certainly *not* Christian teaching.