Shawn Roberts is a hero.

[Hellrot]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1483479/posts

An armed bystander shot and killed a carjacker Monday morning in Acworth, Ga., after the suspect caused an accident that killed his female victim.

... Still carrying a handgun, the carjacker fled from the SUV on foot, running toward the Raceway gas station on the northeast corner of the intersection.

A man who had witnessed the carjacking and followed the Sequioa in his black 2004 Dodge Ram truck confronted the gunman in the intersection. According to police, the citizen – identified as Shawn Roberts – shot the suspect three times, killing him ...

If he gets charged with anything, we need to start a legal defense fund for him.

[VANCE]

^
that's what im talking about

[Matt]

Good for him. Probably saved us millions in legal fees and police work.

Matt

[bcart1991]

I saw on the news that Cobb Police weren't planning on pressing any charges.

[Hellrot]

It's a good thing he was in Cobb. I can think of other jurisdictions where he would have been charged with violating the rights of the perp to jack cars, rape, pillage, etc.

When I first saw this, I assumed it was Dean that had performed his duty as an upstanding citizen.

[shawn5096]

I really don't like those kind of accidents, when the driver lives and the passenger dies , it would make me feel really really bad. Im glad cobb isn't pressing any charges

[Sparc_it]

Well it is in the Kennesaw/Acworth area where it is law to have a gun if you own a house. SO the cops are like its about damn time someone wasn't a pussy and did what that law was created to do.

[Ali]

I woulda not cared and drove on

[delgadoduvidoso]

I would've been scared and drove on

Fixed

[Ali]

Fixed

heh heh, takes alot more than that to scare me

[jgerry]

I'll dissent and say that they should charge him with manslaughter, then let the jury decide whether to convict him. I'd guess in Cobb, they'd let him off with nothing.

I may be the only one to think that it's not OK to follow someone who you think committed a crime (are you sure you've got the right person??) and shoot them. It says he followed the car after seeing the carjacking -- great! Get a freakin' license plate # and call the police.

I may not trust the government, the police, or the judicial system a whole lot (especially in Cobb county), but I'd rather they make the call than some yahoo with a freaking handgun. Law and order needs to prevail.

On a happy note though, no incarceration costs!

[M3Bill]

I'll dissent and say that they should charge him with manslaughter, then let the jury decide whether to convict him. I'd guess in Cobb, they'd let him off with nothing.

I may be the only one to think that it's not OK to follow someone who you think committed a crime (are you sure you've got the right person??) and shoot them. It says he followed the car after seeing the carjacking -- great! Get a freakin' license plate # and call the police.

I may not trust the government, the police, or the judicial system a whole lot (especially in Cobb county), but I'd rather they make the call than some yahoo with a freaking handgun. Law and order needs to prevail.

On a happy note though, no incarceration costs!

In the press release, it says that the the man pointed a gun at him before he fired. If he saw him beating the woman, then he saw him committing a crime. And he saw them driving down the road in a vehicle with the doors swinging open...not too hard to figure out that something is amiss.

He did the right thing and I'm confused as to why you characterize him as a yahoo? Are you one of those anti-gun yahoos?

[CosmoE36]

wow i almost thought this thread was about me and someone didnt finish my last name seeing as it is Shawn Robertson lol oh well.. ues that man is a HERO. should not be charged.

[jgerry]

YAHOO: member of a race of brutes in Gulliver's Travels by Jonathan Swift. It's a general term to describe someone who tends towards brutishness or violence. It's not meant to be pejorative. OK, maybe it is a little bit.

The guy pointed a gun at him, sure -- because he chased him down and confronted him. Brave? Perhaps. Stupid? Perhaps.

I personally don't want anyone running around my neighborhood practicing vigilante justice. That scares the crap out of me. And no, I'm not an anti-gun yahoo -- I have been around them my whole life and own 4 handguns and a shotgun and a rifle.

I'm not going to say he was right or wrong, I'm just offering the opinion that it's possibly not a good idea for everyone to run around shooting everyone they think committed a crime. I figured most people would line up and say YAY! Good job. And I thought I'd offer another opionion. That's all.

[delgadoduvidoso]

And I thought I'd offer another opionion. That's all.

This is bimmerforums...other opinions are forbidden.

[joecoolinatl]

they said tonight the d.a. hasnt decided if he was going to press charges.
if he does press charges im all for a legal defense fund.

[Doctor Wha]

The guy pointed a gun at him, sure -- because he chased him down and confronted him. Brave? Perhaps. Stupid? Perhaps.

I personally don't want anyone running around my neighborhood practicing vigilante justice. That scares the crap out of me.

The man wasn't "running around practicing" anything. He witnessed, firsthand, a violent carjacking/kidnapping, and the subsequent beating of the female victim.

Anyone with an ounce of grey cells to rub together knows that merely getting a license plate isn't gong to do very much. By the time the cops respond, the car & perpetrator could have been long gone. Plenty of people who call 911 and report moving viloations follow and keep track of the offenders until police can make it to the area and take over. It happens all the time, and if the witness is comfortable doing so, there's nothing wrong with it.

Moreover, did you ever, from your lofty perspective, ever give a moment's thought to the possibility that he was following to try and help the woman who was being beaten and shot?

I'm not going to say he was right or wrong, I'm just offering the opinion that it's possibly not a good idea for everyone to run around shooting everyone they think committed a crime.

You really need to get your facts straight. He didn't think the perp comitted a crime, he saw it happen. And he didn't fire until he himself was threatened. That's not "vigilante" anything. That's a perfectly legal and absolutely correct defense of his own life.

Clark’s attempted escape from the SUV was cut short by three bullets fired by a man who said he witnessed the carjacking and followed Clark until the deadly crash. Witness Shawn Roberts fired at Clark when carjacker started turning his own gun toward him.

http://www.11alive.com/money/money_a...?storyid=69194

I figured most people would line up and say YAY! Good job. And I thought I'd offer another opionion. That's all.

Your "opinion," aside from being poorly informed, and totally dismissive of the facts, reads more like someone whistling past the graveyard.

If you're not inclined to act in defense of a stranger, or to help keep track of a clearly violent criminal until police arrive, fine. You're certainly under no obligation to do so. But hiding your preference to do nothing by "offer[ing] an opionion" [sic] that simply derides someone who's made of sterner stuff than you isn't fooling anyone.

DW

[tabasco]

Word is that they are going to charge Shawn.

[M3Bill]

Anyone with an ounce of grey cells to rub together knows that merely getting a license plate isn't gong to do very much. By the time the cops respond, the car & perpetrator could have been long gone. Plenty of people who call 911 and report moving viloations follow and keep track of the offenders until police can make it to the area and take over. It happens all the time, and if the witness is comfortable doing so, there's nothing wrong with it.

[jgerry]

Plenty of people who call 911 and report moving viloations follow and keep track of the offenders until police can make it to the area and take over. It happens all the time, and if the witness is comfortable doing so, there's nothing wrong with it.

Following someone until the police arrive and shooting them are two very different things.

Moreover, did you ever, from your lofty perspective, ever give a moment's thought to the possibility that he was following to try and help the woman who was being beaten and shot?

Absolutely. And that's an admirable thing to do. But if you get involved in that, be prepared to pay the price for being a good samaritan working the gray areas of the law. You're likely to spend some time in a cell, and it's likely to cost you a whole bunch of money. Until we have a legal system that's free for defendants, be prepared. I'm not saying that any of it is fair, but you have to work with what we have, and the laws we have really don't allow for this. They can't! Too many variables.

You really need to get your facts straight. He didn't think the perp comitted a crime, he saw it happen. And he didn't fire until he himself was threatened. That's not "vigilante" anything. That's a perfectly legal and absolutely correct defense of his own life.

He says he saw it happen. In this case, he's probably right. But laws have to apply broadly, not for a single instance. Mistakes can be made. Witnesses may make inaccurate statements or finger the wrong person. Multiple witnesses can give conflicting statements. Crime scenes can be crazy and chaotic, people make mistakes. And if there isn't a clear-cut story, who do you believe and what do you do? You sit the perpetrator in a cell and work him or her through the legal system. That's the only way for it to be handled.

VIGILANTE: One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.

That's absolutely what happened here, it's a totally accurate representation. That's vigilante "everything", to use your terminology.

Your "opinion," aside from being poorly informed, and totally dismissive of the facts, reads more like someone whistling past the graveyard.

I'm not dismissive of the facts. My point is, we don't really know what the facts are. If you say that you do, that's ill-informed and shortsighted. All you know is what some reporters have written, based on the accounts of others. Many "facts" are later found to be false. Happens all the time. Maybe we'll find out that the perpetrator didn't pull his gun on this vigilante before he shot him. Witnesses can lie, and maybe they did in this case. We just don't know and may never know.

If you're not inclined to act in defense of a stranger, or to help keep track of a clearly violent criminal until police arrive, fine. You're certainly under no obligation to do so. But hiding your preference to do nothing by "offer[ing] an opionion" [sic] that simply derides someone who's made of sterner stuff than you isn't fooling anyone.

I don't know what my action would be, and you probably don't either. I don't always carry a gun in my car, but if I had one and I saw this, I might do the exact same thing as this guy. Don't mistake my opinion on this single incident for a universal preference of non-intervention. We may like to think we'd all be heroes and help a woman in distress, but we may find that faced with the situation, we would cower in the shadows. None of us knows until it happens.

I have had a gun pulled on me twice, and my reactions were anything but what I expected them to be. I think that it's safe to accept the fact that commenting on this situation from both our "lofty" perspectives is very different than being in a situation like this one.

[AtlzDesiKhiladi]

If he gets charged...I say we assasinate the D.A...who's with me?

[Sparc_it]

I personally don't want anyone running around my neighborhood practicing vigilante justice. That scares the crap out of me. And no, I'm not an anti-gun yahoo -- I have been around them my whole life and own 4 handguns and a shotgun and a rifle.

What do you have them for? Looks? Toys? IMO, handguns were made for personal defense..or other things, target practice is just a secondary justification for them. Shawn did the right thing and used his gun as it was supposed to be used. What would happen if Shawn didn't take action and didn't have a gun? More people could have died at the hands of this nutjob and more destruction of property.

Case closed.

[tony(topaz,SMG)]

[QUOTE=jgerry]
I may be the only one to think that it's not OK to follow someone who you think committed a crime (are you sure you've got the right person??) and shoot them. It says he followed the car after seeing the carjacking -- great! Get a freakin' license plate # and call the police.QUOTE]

The police are too busy hiding behind bushes with their laser guns to be able to assist with real emergencies, so if your hoping they can protect you from perps, you're SOL.

[Doctor Wha]

Following someone until the police arrive and shooting them are two very different things.

Not only different, but entirely separate. Shooting someone who points a gun at you and presents a reasonable threat has nothing to do with whether or not he followed them anywhere.

Absolutely. And that's an admirable thing to do. But if you get involved in that, be prepared to pay the price for being a good samaritan working the gray areas of the law.

"Gray area?" Clearly, you know painfully little about the law. There is no grey area if your life is threatened. You are perfectly within your rights to respond with deadly force to protect yourself.

He says he saw it happen. In this case, he's probably right. But laws have to apply broadly, not for a single instance. Mistakes can be made. Witnesses may make inaccurate statements or finger the wrong person. Multiple witnesses can give conflicting statements. Crime scenes can be crazy and chaotic, people make mistakes. And if there isn't a clear-cut story, who do you believe and what do you do? You sit the perpetrator in a cell and work him or her through the legal system. That's the only way for it to be handled.

Yes, he should have just let the perp shoot him, and see if he survived to "work it thourgh the system." Surely that was the right thing to do instead.

VIGILANTE: One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.
That's absolutely what happened here, it's a totally accurate representation. That's vigilante "everything", to use your terminology.

Congrats on quoting a dictionary, but no, it does not apply. Vigilantism requires someone to go beyond the rights of a regular citizen. This guy wasn't out on his own solitary patrol, taking on the role of judge/jury/executioner. He was going about his business, when he witnessed a crime.

- He followed, most likely to keep track of the criminal, and render aid if possible. Perfectly legal and within the rights of an ordinary citizen.

- Absent immediate help from autorities, he chose to intervene. Brave, yes, maybe even foolhardy, but still, perfectly legal and within the rights of an ordinary citizen.

- He was threatened with deadly force, and responded in kind. Perfectly legal and within the rights of an ordinary citizen.

Absolutely none of that fits the definition of vigilantism.

I'm not dismissive of the facts. My point is, we don't really know what the facts are. If you say that you do, that's ill-informed and shortsighted. All you know is what some reporters have written, based on the accounts of others.

Wrong. You must have missed the interview with the man himself on one of the evening news channels last night. His account was consistent with previous reports, and he displayed no signs of deceit. He was not boastful, nor even proud of what happened, but rather, said he was sorry it came to that, but he had no choice but to protect himself.

Many "facts" are later found to be false. Happens all the time. Maybe we'll find out that the perpetrator didn't pull his gun on this vigilante before he shot him. Witnesses can lie, and maybe they did in this case. We just don't know and may never know.

Man, you crack me up. You seriously want to debate the merits of a clean-record citizen who came to the aid of an innocent victim, versus the merits of a convicted child molestor/rapist/kidnapper/carjacker?

There is a resonable standard to be applied; A reasonable person would have little doubt that a violent criminal, in the process of comitting a capital crime (remember that the autopsy showed the woman had already been shot before the wreck), would not hesitate to further threaten or shoot anyone who got in his way.

That same standard demonstrates that there is little reason to doubt the account or intent of a man who tried to come to the aid of an innocent victim, and was forced to act in defense of his own life.

If you're really going to sit there and claim that the expectations of integrity for both those people are the same, then O.J. Simpson would no doubt like your help in finding the "real killers."

I don't know what my action would be, and you probably don't either. I don't always carry a gun in my car, but if I had one and I saw this, I might do the exact same thing as this guy. Don't mistake my opinion on this single incident for a universal preference of non-intervention. We may like to think we'd all be heroes and help a woman in distress, but we may find that faced with the situation, we would cower in the shadows. None of us knows until it happens.

No one knows, but from your statements, it's pretty clear where your preference lies. But as I said previously: You're under no obligation to do anything, so sleep tight.

I have had a gun pulled on me twice, and my reactions were anything but what I expected them to be. I think that it's safe to accept the fact that commenting on this situation from both our "lofty" perspectives is very different than being in a situation like this one.

As has been your wont to do in your brief presence here, you assume things you don't know. Of course, you have no way of knowing if I have ever been in a situation to defend myself from a deadly threat, but the fact is that I have, and I did.

Frankly, I find your claims of having a gun pointed at you twice rather dubious. Given your total lack of regard for the nature of the perpetrator in this case, and baseless slandering of a citizen who did absolutely nothing wrong, it's pretty clear where your allegiances lie. Thus, I think it's more likely the guns pointed at you were wielded by police, rather than criminals.

Most people, having been victims of violent crimes, learn very quickly that there is far less to be done for violent criminals, than should be done to them. Then again, maybe you're one of the "Jesus loves everybody" crowd, and you think a known criminal deserves the benefit of whatever sliver of doubt his defenders can squeeze out of thin air.

After all, everybody's innocent in jail, right?


Whatever. I just hope if someone I care about is ever attacked, carjacked, or threatened, someone with a far less warm-and-fuzzy view of criminals is nearby who won't waste time pondering how the "system" might work things out before doing something about it.

But if you are ever in a situation like this, please, get out of the way of the people who will actually step up and help.

DW

[Dean]

Following someone until the police arrive and shooting them are two very different things.



Absolutely. And that's an admirable thing to do. But if you get involved in that, be prepared to pay the price for being a good samaritan working the gray areas of the law. You're likely to spend some time in a cell, and it's likely to cost you a whole bunch of money. Until we have a legal system that's free for defendants, be prepared. I'm not saying that any of it is fair, but you have to work with what we have, and the laws we have really don't allow for this. They can't! Too many variables.



He says he saw it happen. In this case, he's probably right. But laws have to apply broadly, not for a single instance. Mistakes can be made. Witnesses may make inaccurate statements or finger the wrong person. Multiple witnesses can give conflicting statements. Crime scenes can be crazy and chaotic, people make mistakes. And if there isn't a clear-cut story, who do you believe and what do you do? You sit the perpetrator in a cell and work him or her through the legal system. That's the only way for it to be handled.

VIGILANTE: One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands.

That's absolutely what happened here, it's a totally accurate representation. That's vigilante "everything", to use your terminology.



I'm not dismissive of the facts. My point is, we don't really know what the facts are. If you say that you do, that's ill-informed and shortsighted. All you know is what some reporters have written, based on the accounts of others. Many "facts" are later found to be false. Happens all the time. Maybe we'll find out that the perpetrator didn't pull his gun on this vigilante before he shot him. Witnesses can lie, and maybe they did in this case. We just don't know and may never know.



I don't know what my action would be, and you probably don't either. I don't always carry a gun in my car, but if I had one and I saw this, I might do the exact same thing as this guy. Don't mistake my opinion on this single incident for a universal preference of non-intervention. We may like to think we'd all be heroes and help a woman in distress, but we may find that faced with the situation, we would cower in the shadows. None of us knows until it happens.

I have had a gun pulled on me twice, and my reactions were anything but what I expected them to be. I think that it's safe to accept the fact that commenting on this situation from both our "lofty" perspectives is very different than being in a situation like this one.

I can't believe some of the bull$hit you are even writing. Why even own a gun for personal defense if that is the way you think and feel? What I do believe is if you ever got car jacked or witnessed a crime, I bet you would "cower in the shadows" dialing 911 by the way you are talking.

I was involved in an attempted car jacking in my BMW off of Ponce De Leon. What saved my friend and I was the 9mm next to the e-brake; unfortunately, when I pulled it out it wasn't chambered. Luckily, the crack head got scared when he saw it and ran off. I should of ended it there and left. Now what I did next would be considered a "vigilante" move. I immediately chased after him and chambered my weapon in the process, and I started firing 3 rounds at his ass and shortly after he started shooting back while he was running away from me. I obviously missed him, and I'm glad I did, or I would of probably been in prison today. What I do regret is not having my gun chambered that night. If it was, I would of dropped his ass right where he stood.

What I did was probably beyond stupidity. What Shawn Roberts did was justifiable.