Prosecutor won't charge man who shot burglary suspect with bow and arrow

[Bill Mattocks]

Note the words of caution from the judge in this case; you walk a fine line when employing deadly force against a fleeing criminal...

http://tdn.com/news/local/article_119bf892-911e-11df-b2c5-001cc4c002e0.html

Cowlitz County Prosecutor Sue Baur said she will not prosecute a Kelso man who shot an arrow into the buttock of a suspected fleeing burglar late last year, but insisted Friday she is not encouraging vigilante justice.
In an interview, Baur said her decision is by no means a license for Cowlitz County residents to open fire on people they believe to be committing crimes.
"If someone chooses to use force on a fleeing felon, their facts better be right - and the likelihood of that is very rare," Baur said. "So you take your chances, and that's why we want you to leave it up to the police. We don't want people taking chances with their own safety, bystander's safety."
Kelso police said that around 11:45 p.m. Dec. 13, Scott Allen Schwingdorf, 33, heard glass breaking at his neighbors' vacant home in the 1100 block of 10th Avenue North and spotted Galen Louis Crayne of Longview walking away from the residence with a brown box tucked under his arm.
Schwingdorf, who had armed himself with a hunting bow, shot a fleeing Crayne in the left buttock with a broadhead arrow, police said.

 

[Big Don]

Could have used a fowling blunt, to just knock the crap out of him...

 

[chaos1551]

BWAAAHAHA!!

The guy left the arrow stuck in his butt for SIX MONTHS. Hahaha..

 

[CoryKS]

Crayne, who faces trial in September for residential burglary, could not be reached. His mother, Jacquelyn Crayne, of Longview, said she is angry with the prosecutor's office for not filing charges against the man who shot her son.
"We don't want people out burglarizing places," she said. "But it is not somebody else's responsibility to do something about it. You should never be allowed to do what that man did. He is by no means trained to recognize or assess a situation properly. It's not his right."

I'm sure that's what your son was counting on.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Note the words of caution from the judge in this case; you walk a fine line when employing deadly force against a fleeing criminal...

http://tdn.com/news/local/article_119bf892-911e-11df-b2c5-001cc4c002e0.html

It's more like you walk a fine line when adjudicating the use of deadly force against a fleeing criminal. We'd all love to play heroes, I'm sure, but you've got to admit the problems that would ensue if vigilante justice became routine. I hate to use a stereotype, but imagine for a moment if every racist redneck out there decided that every black kid on a bike is stealing it. Among other things, cops are trained in procedures that ensure that they're chasing or arresting the right guy for the right reasons during an incident. Your average citizen isn't so trained.

Please note that the decision condoned the actions taken by today's Robin Hood; he saw someone committing a felony and used force to prevent it. The decision vindicated him.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

It's more like you walk a fine line when adjudicating the use of deadly force against a fleeing criminal. We'd all love to play heroes, I'm sure, but you've got to admit the problems that would ensue if vigilante justice became routine. I hate to use a stereotype, but imagine for a moment if every racist redneck out there decided that every black kid on a bike is stealing it. Among other things, cops are trained in procedures that ensure that they're chasing or arresting the right guy for the right reasons during an incident. Your average citizen isn't so trained.

Please note that the decision condoned the actions taken by today's Robin Hood; he saw someone committing a felony and used force to prevent it. The decision vindicated him.

All true, but I think the prosecutor was making it clear that the shooter was lucky that the circumstances favored him; the shooter was probably not aware of how close he was to it NOT being a good shoot.

In the end, regardless of whether the problem is with adjudication or the letter of the law, if you get it 'wrong' you go to prison. That's a harsh reality that anyone who would shoot a 'fleeing felon' might want to consider. On a different day, with a different prosecutor, or if the circumstances had been a tiny bit different, he might not have gone home to his family that night. Not a pleasant thought. And even so, I'll bet he spent a bunch of money on legal assistance and had some sleepless nights.

I'm just saying - when you defend yourself or your home with deadly force, you run certain risks. It is a good idea to have a reasonable idea of when you can and can't use deadly force, and also understand what you risk when you make that decision.

Frankly - if someone barged into my house, I'd have no hesitation at using deadly force to defend myself and my family. Once they departed, I probably would not take the shot this guy did to stop the bad guy. I have to go to work in the morning. I can't risk a gung-ho prosecutor deciding to make an example of me to put a stop to 'vigilantes'. Somebody else can be the hero, I have a strong need to stay out of prison and not pay monstrous legal bills. If that doesn't concern you, then hey, go for it.

 

[David43515]

I`ve got to agree with Bill. This guy was extremely lucky. I`m sure that if the injuries were more severe, or had resulted in death, he`d be waiting for his trial just like the thief is waiting for his now.

We`re not talking about a murderer or a rapist here. If a guy is fleeing and doesn`t appear to be armed, I`m just gonna let the police track him down. A TV or stereo isn`t worth the potential hassle to me.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Cowlitz County Prosecutor Sue Baur said she will not prosecute a Kelso man who shot an arrow into the buttock of a suspected fleeing burglar late last year, but insisted Friday she is not encouraging vigilante justice.
In an interview, Baur said her decision is by no means a license for Cowlitz County residents to open fire on people they believe to be committing crimes.
"If someone chooses to use force on a fleeing felon, their facts better be right - and the likelihood of that is very rare," Baur said. "So you take your chances, and that's why we want you to leave it up to the police. We don't want people taking chances with their own safety, bystander's safety."
Kelso police said that around 11:45 p.m. Dec. 13, Scott Allen Schwingdorf, 33, heard glass breaking at his neighbors' vacant home in the 1100 block of 10th Avenue North and spotted Galen Louis Crayne of Longview walking away from the residence with a brown box tucked under his arm.
Schwingdorf, who had armed himself with a hunting bow, shot a fleeing Crayne in the left buttock with a broadhead arrow, police said.

And, once again, the people who aren't responsible for our safety tell us not to protect ourselves or our neighbors.

Though I think some additional forethought should have been taken by the person in this particular case, I love it when public officials tell us "let the police handle it", when the police have no positive responsibility to protect us.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

And, once again, the people who aren't responsible for our safety tell us not to protect ourselves or our neighbors.

Though I think some additional forethought should have been taken by the person in this particular case, I love it when public officials tell us "let the police handle it", when the police have no positive responsibility to protect us.

I'll go ahead and play dumb here. What do you mean, no positive responsibility?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I'll go ahead and play dumb here. What do you mean, no positive responsibility?

I think he means that the police have no legal responsibility to protect individual citizens from crime. That's very true, and has been established over and over again in various court cases.

Let's say someone breaks into your house, you dial 911, wait patiently, and the guy still manages to do what he came for and abscond. The police fail to stop the crime in time. You sue, because they were supposed to protect you. You'd lose, because although they have a basic responsibility to the citizens in their jurisdiction, it is not an individual responsibility to each person. They're not your bodyguard; in a very real sense, they can't be.

However, this scenario involved a citizen chasing a fleeing burglar and shooting him in the butt with an arrow. The crime was already done.

While it is generally (depends on the state) legal for a citizen to make arrests (the often-flamed 'citizen's arrest'), and it is generally legal for a citizen to use force to prevent the escape of a fleeing felon when they personally witnessed the felony, it does put the responsibility on the citizen in question to get the law and the facts straight.

If a citizen arrests someone and they did not have the legal right to do so, they are liable for being arrested themselves and charged with anything from false arrest, false imprisonment, or even kidnapping. Same for using force to stop a fleeing felon; if it turns out the guy did not do it, you saw it wrong, or it was not a felony, or you missed and hit someone else by mistake, etc, etc.

That's why the police generally do not welcome citizens who try to enforce the law on their own. Yes, it is legal to do so in many cases, but the risks to the person in question are fairly high, as are the perceived risks to innocent bystanders when otherwise-untrained vigilantes take the law into their own hands.

In other words, it's great to tackle a purse-snatcher and hold him for the police. Maybe not so great to pull out your gat and start popping caps in the general direction of the guy as he runs past you. If you happen to hit him, you might be in the clear. If you miss and hit someone else, not so good.

 

[Bruno@MT]

If a citizen arrests someone and they did not have the legal right to do so, they are liable for being arrested themselves and charged with anything from false arrest, false imprisonment, or even kidnapping. Same for using force to stop a fleeing felon; if it turns out the guy did not do it, you saw it wrong, or it was not a felony, or you missed and hit someone else by mistake, etc, etc.

That's why the police generally do not welcome citizens who try to enforce the law on their own. Yes, it is legal to do so in many cases, but the risks to the person in question are fairly high, as are the perceived risks to innocent bystanders when otherwise-untrained vigilantes take the law into their own hands.

In other words, it's great to tackle a purse-snatcher and hold him for the police. Maybe not so great to pull out your gat and start popping caps in the general direction of the guy as he runs past you. If you happen to hit him, you might be in the clear. If you miss and hit someone else, not so good.

+1.

And this is what the judge was getting at.
And despite what 5-0 is implying, the judge is right to warn the shooter that he was lucky he had the facts on his side. Because good intention don't count for anything if you shoot the wrong guy, or if you shoot him but were not allowed to do so. Vigilante justice is a thing of the past, and for a good reason. What usually happened was that people were lynched for crimes that do not warrant such a drastic action, and usually guilt was established on no more than having a convenient suspect.

 

[Tez3]

+1.

And this is what the judge was getting at.
And despite what 5-0 is implying, the judge is right to warn the shooter that he was lucky he had the facts on his side. Because good intention don't count for anything if you shoot the wrong guy, or if you shoot him but were not allowed to do so. Vigilante justice is a thing of the past, and for a good reason. What usually happened was that people were lynched for crimes that do not warrant such a drastic action, and usually guilt was established on no more than having a convenient suspect.

Good post..again!

Put yourself on the other side of the picture, you are walking down the road minding your own business when someone runs past you then you feel great pain as you are shot. A householder who's home was broken into has chased the thief down the road and shot at him but hits you instead either by accident or because he sees someone and assumes it was you, I'm thinking you wouldn't be too happy? All actions have to be reasonable in law, shooting the thief while in your house and threatenng you, reasonable, shooting him in the back while he's escaping unreasonable as your life wasn't at risk, detaining him with reasonable force and calling the police however, that's correct.
Shouting that he deserved to be shot then finding out the person you killed was completely innocent is not going to be a good feeling, especially if you are the one dead.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

+1.

And this is what the judge was getting at.
And despite what 5-0 is implying, the judge is right to warn the shooter that he was lucky he had the facts on his side. Because good intention don't count for anything if you shoot the wrong guy, or if you shoot him but were not allowed to do so. Vigilante justice is a thing of the past, and for a good reason. What usually happened was that people were lynched for crimes that do not warrant such a drastic action, and usually guilt was established on no more than having a convenient suspect.

I'm sorry, just what is it that you think I was implying?

If you somehow think that I was saying that citizens should go out and do the work of law enforcement, then you are absolutely mistaken.

What I am "implying" is that if someone is being victimized or sees a crime occurring they shouldn't have to stand by while waiting for a group to show up who has no responsibility in helping you. Not only that, but in all likelyhood, in this case, the nameless, faceless suspect would probably have gotten away with his crime were it not for th intervention of a man looking out for his neighbor.

Once again, you go ahead and depend on the government absolutely for your well-being. I prefer to live among a group of people that helps themselves with the assistance of government.

Oh, by the way, I love it how people immediately go to the extreme with these topics and believe that everyone will be running around shooting each other just because they "look a certain way". How ridiculous. How about we get rid of all cars because everyone will be a drunk driver.

 

[Cryozombie]

Oh, by the way, I love it how people immediately go to the extreme with these topics and believe that everyone will be running around shooting each other just because they "look a certain way". How ridiculous. How about we get rid of all cars because everyone will be a drunk driver.

Or Not license the Irish because we are all drunks.

 

[Bruno@MT]

I'm sorry, just what is it that you think I was implying?

If you somehow think that I was saying that citizens should go out and do the work of law enforcement, then you are absolutely mistaken.

What I am "implying" is that if someone is being victimized or sees a crime occurring they shouldn't have to stand by while waiting for a group to show up who has no responsibility in helping you. Not only that, but in all likelyhood, in this case, the nameless, faceless suspect would probably have gotten away with his crime were it not for th intervention of a man looking out for his neighbor.

Once again, you go ahead and depend on the government absolutely for your well-being. I prefer to live among a group of people that helps themselves with the assistance of government.

Oh, by the way, I love it how people immediately go to the extreme with these topics and believe that everyone will be running around shooting each other just because they "look a certain way". How ridiculous. How about we get rid of all cars because everyone will be a drunk driver.

If you actually read my post to you, you'll see that that is NOT what I said.
I said that the judge was right to explain to the defendant that he was lucky that he had the law on his side. Because if he hadn't, the man would have been found guilty.

Nowhere did I mention that you should wait for the cops to defend yourselves, not did I mention anything about taking away guns from people. I don't mind having an argument with you, but please don't put words in my mouth.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

If you actually read my post to you, you'll see that that is NOT what I said.
I said that the judge was right to explain to the defendant that he was lucky that he had the law on his side. Because if he hadn't, the man would have been found guilty.

Nowhere did I mention that you should wait for the cops to defend yourselves, not did I mention anything about taking away guns from people. I don't mind having an argument with you, but please don't put words in my mouth.

I think you are right. Often, the argument that a person should be absolutely certain of their rights and the potential outcome of their actions before attempting to detain a fleeing suspect, especially using a deadly weapon, is interpreted as "Oh, I guess you think women should just lay back and enjoy being raped and wait for the police to show up." Good lord. Suggesting that people employ their brains does not mean advocating that we all become professional victims.

 

[Cryozombie]

"Oh, I guess you think women should just lay back and enjoy being raped and wait for the police to show up." Good lord. Suggesting that people employ their brains does not mean advocating that we all become professional victims.

Bill, and Bruno, I don't disagree with either of you here... and I personally would never chase the subject down the street. But unfortunately I think a lot of people Do take the mentality of "Wait for the police" and expect people to do so. *I* hear it a lot, and its easy to mistake "That guy is lucky he got away with it" for "that was stupid he should have waited for the cops" when you have heard it all often enough.

On that subject, I was even "fortunate" enough to be asked to attend a meeting with a "safety expert" who told us all in no uncertain terms, "Whatever you do, whatever happens, comply... then work with the police to catch them afterwords". She drove her point home by picking the biggest guy in the group, grabbing him from behind and saying, "ok, how would you get away" and as soon as he moved she fired a cap gun and said "you are dead and thats what will happen if you fight back"

Another situation I was on a "blind" date a couple years ago, and the subject of guns came up... during that conversation She stated that in no way shape or form would she ever have a gun in her house, and I casually asked what she would do if someone broke in since she lived alone... she stated she would call the cops, she knew they only had a 7-10 minute response time to where she lived. I let it go at that, of course. Its nice she had an idea of the response time, but IMO its also unrealistic to expect you cannot be beaten or killed in 7-10 minutes, assuming the cops aren't busy elsewhere. Not that I'm using that as justification that she should have a gun, but it doesn't seem like a very complete plan. Even having a solid-core door with a deadbolt inside in a closet would, IMHO make that a better plan... but I'm getting away from the point.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bill, and Bruno, I don't disagree with either of you here... and I personally would never chase the subject down the street. But unfortunately I think a lot of people Do take the mentality of "Wait for the police" and expect people to do so. *I* hear it a lot, and its easy to mistake "That guy is lucky he got away with it" for "that was stupid he should have waited for the cops" when you have heard it all often enough.

On that subject, I was even "fortunate" enough to be asked to attend a meeting with a "safety expert" who told us all in no uncertain terms, "Whatever you do, whatever happens, comply... then work with the police to catch them afterwords". She drove her point home by picking the biggest guy in the group, grabbing him from behind and saying, "ok, how would you get away" and as soon as he moved she fired a cap gun and said "you are dead and thats what will happen if you fight back"

Another situation I was on a "blind" date a couple years ago, and the subject of guns came up... during that conversation She stated that in no way shape or form would she ever have a gun in her house, and I casually asked what she would do if someone broke in since she lived alone... she stated she would call the cops, she knew they only had a 7-10 minute response time to where she lived. I let it go at that, of course. Its nice she had an idea of the response time, but IMO its also unrealistic to expect you cannot be beaten or killed in 7-10 minutes, assuming the cops aren't busy elsewhere. Not that I'm using that as justification that she should have a gun, but it doesn't seem like a very complete plan. Even having a solid-core door with a deadbolt inside in a closet would, IMHO make that a better plan... but I'm getting away from the point.

Basic point being (I think) that yes, it's fine to defend yourself. The police are not liable for your personal safety, so you'd best be able to take care of yourself. Great idea.

Also, if you can stop a person from leaving once they've completed a crime and are fleeing, well, more power to ya. Everybody has a basic stake in getting criminals off the streets; it benefits us all.

However, if you employ deadly force, you might want to think about the consequences of your actions. You could get hurt or killed yourself. You could overstep your authority and get sued or arrested yourself. You could hurt or kill someone who was not your target. You could even be mistaken about whether or not the person you are trying to stop committed the act you think he or she did.

If none of that matters to you, then knock yourself out. If, like many of us, you have to go to work in the morning and can't afford massive legal bills (even if you're in the right, you could still find yourself defending your actions in court), then it may be worth a second thought. I'm not advocating NOT chasing a fleeing felon or NOT attempting to stop a criminal, I'm suggesting that you might want to apply a modicum of common sense to the concept, assuming you can spare a brain cell.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

If you actually read my post to you, you'll see that that is NOT what I said.
I said that the judge was right to explain to the defendant that he was lucky that he had the law on his side. Because if he hadn't, the man would have been found guilty.

Nowhere did I mention that you should wait for the cops to defend yourselves, not did I mention anything about taking away guns from people. I don't mind having an argument with you, but please don't put words in my mouth.

I did, in fact, read you post. I will admit that my reply was a bit overzealous in saying "you go ahead and depend absolutely on the government for you well-being, and for that I will apologize.

However, I would like for you to realize one thing: my comments were related to what you thought I was "implying". With all due respect, we both put words in each others mouths. You stated that I was implying something more then what I actually said. That simply was not the case. So we are both guilty of it.

But in regards to the story, I find it interesting that he is considered "lucky". He was watching a house at the request of neighbors, which means he knew who was allowed into the home. He hears damage being done to the property, and a person walking away from same with items ostensibly from inside a property he had no business being inside. He tells his mother to call the police. He calls for the suspect to stop multiple times, and the suspect flees. That's he uses force to stop him.

How is that "lucky"? He knew what was going on, and the law supported his right to take action. The D.A. would like to convince us that that is a rare occurance. Maybe in her county, I suppose. But based on my experience, the residents of a community have far greater insight as to the crime in their area then the police, and even more so then a D.A.

He wasn't lucky, he knew facts which supported his actions. That is an entirely different matter. And if people have the facts to a situation, they should not be warned not to take action and just let the police handle it. At most, in my opinion, they should tell people that if they are going to take action, make sure they have the facts available to support their case.

I will be honest though, I don't know if it's reasonable to use deadly force to protect property. It was my understanding that that went away a long time ago. Which is exactly why I stated earlier that I think some additional forethought on his part would have been prudent.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Basic point being (I think) that yes, it's fine to defend yourself. The police are not liable for your personal safety, so you'd best be able to take care of yourself. Great idea.

Also, if you can stop a person from leaving once they've completed a crime and are fleeing, well, more power to ya. Everybody has a basic stake in getting criminals off the streets; it benefits us all.

However, if you employ deadly force, you might want to think about the consequences of your actions. You could get hurt or killed yourself. You could overstep your authority and get sued or arrested yourself. You could hurt or kill someone who was not your target. You could even be mistaken about whether or not the person you are trying to stop committed the act you think he or she did.

If none of that matters to you, then knock yourself out. If, like many of us, you have to go to work in the morning and can't afford massive legal bills (even if you're in the right, you could still find yourself defending your actions in court), then it may be worth a second thought. I'm not advocating NOT chasing a fleeing felon or NOT attempting to stop a criminal, I'm suggesting that you might want to apply a modicum of common sense to the concept, assuming you can spare a brain cell.

You had me until your comment of, "If none of that matters to you, then knock yourself out". What you have basically said is more power to you to do catch a bad guy, but if a person uses deadly force, then they don't care about the things you listed. And if they do use deadly force, then they didn't "spare a brain cell."

That's ridiculous, and in my opinion, rather condesending. Maybe some people will take reasonable risks to themselves in order to help a neighbor. If not, then what's the point of being a neighbor. You're just the guy who lives next door.

Don't get me wrong, I get your point: think about the consequences of your actions. I even agree with it. But the way you put it just makes everyone out who does it to be a fool.