Real Lawyer: What Went Wrong in Work Truck Shooting?
Shocking video has been released showing a North Carolina Department of Transportation worker attempting to use a pistol to prevent the theft of his work truck.
He fires several rounds at the thief, who manages to drive the truck away backwards.
Unfortunately, the thief then drives the truck back to the scene of conflict, running down and killing the NC DOT worker.
The thief has now been charged with murder, larceny of a vehicle, and other crimes–but, of course, the NC DOT worker remains dead.
What went wrong in this tragic scenario? What were the legal errors, if any? What were the tactical errors, if any?
Join me LIVE at 11 AM ET to discuss. NOTE THIS IS ONE HOUR EARLIER THAN OUR USUAL TIME!
FREE BOOK! “The Law of Self Defense: Principles”
Physical book, 200+ pages, we just ask that you cover the S&H:
Disclaimer – Content is for educational & entertainment purposes only, and does not constitute legal advice.
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
Short barrel, small caliber weapon or less than lethal pepper, ball or blanks. Improper sight picture, improper handling, lack of practice, lack of proper instructions by a certified instructor. Any one of these means don't bring it. What was behind his Target? A store. A store equals people. Was he in immediate danger? No. Was it his personal vehicle I.E his personal property? Doubtful. If it was his personal property, does he have a legal right to protect it? Depends on what State he's in. Texas, yes, New York, hell to the naw Even if he had your sister pinned to the ground after he popped five into a baby carriage. Did he move as quickly as he could to find cover after he fired? Unfortunately no. I cannot stress enough that if you plan to carry, which I hope that everyone Law-Abiding citizen could, that you get proper training in self-defense, the law and at the range. I feel terrible for this guy that got ran over and his family and I'm not trying to disrespect him at all but I must stress, be careful trying to be the hero or you may end up being the zero. As for the perpetrator who hit him with the truck, well I see no mercy I can spare for him.
This is why I’ve always said just because you may have the right to own/carry a firearm doesn’t mean you should. Everyone should get training before carrying a firearm outside of their home.
And if I trusted the government, which I don’t, I would even say make it a law that you must complete a training course (not some online crap or non shooting course) before being allowed to carry in public. But since the government can’t be trusted, I wouldn’t advise that law currently.
Watching the video, the victim clearly and deliberately points the gun away from the guy every time he shoots. He was firing warning shots or "bluffing", however ill-advised that might be. He obviously wasn't trying to shoot the man.
Just an aside, it's curious how the McDonald's magically became a Burger King (apparently). Just another testimonial to the accuracy of today's media coverage.
Andrew, will u ever resume your coverage of the Zachariah Anderson trial? Hopefully so. ..I'm sure his family, especially his brother would appreciate it
If ya pull your gun, ya gott kill. If ya gotta kill you better understand whats a legal homicide. Ya can't brandish. Ya can't shoot to "just injure" .. To shoot , you have to be defending against deadly force..Ya can't shoot for trespassing. Ya can't shoot for theft. Ya can only shoot to preserve LIFE. Especially in public.. A gun for us menial plebe "civilians" are a tool to get us to "safety". It's a defensive weapon. The only reason that someone can use a gun and have a good chance of not becoming the victim of the supposed "Justice System " like poor Mr Nick Miu, is when one CAN'T make an escape, against a deadly force attack. I think some people have very wrong ideas about how they're going to legally react to an assailant when they become a victim or victim adjacent. I feel bad for this guy..He would have been fired by his company even if he did survive. I'm certain a state employee having a firearm on the clock is a policy violation. Not that i agree in the slightest when it comes to workers who travel..Most jobs dont even allow non lethal defense tools.
Youre wrong here Branca. This was the SECOND vehicle this man tried to steal. Before he got into the truck, he tried to carjack a woman's car. She sped off, and he want to the truck, to steal it. The guy shooting, saw this happen. Thats why the woman was filming, because it was an evolving scene. There was absolutely, "defense of persons", when the man started shooting at him. I think its obvious, he wasnt trying to kill him. I think he was trying to scare him with the shots. THAT is unlawful, and downright stupid, as the outcome proves. I cant see him actually trying to shoot him, with misses from that distance. Bottom line though, it wasnt basic defense of property. The shooter had witnessed him trying to carjack another person.
This can happen to anyone who shoots on the range every day and still does not hit the suspect. The reason why this guy missed was adrenaline. That changes everything! Police officers have missed shooting suspects at point-blank range as well.
I’ll be a little easier on him on the marksmanship than most are. Plenty of people who can shoot groups on paper all day long fall apart in their first force on force evolution with sims, including (especially) at very close range.
His primary errors were not marksmanship related. Leaving the door unlocked and engine running contributed hugely to his predicament. Pulling a gun and firing when life was not in imminent danger was a major error. Had he not shot at the badguy, badguy likely wouldn’t have run him over, shooting at badguy was an ego challenge.
One thing I found strange was the shots fired were at almost contact distance at the side window and the glass didn't break. I've seen those windows hit many times in both video and real life, and they blow out very quickly. I don't know if he had a revolver, but with the number of shots fired, it's certainly possible. Also, if he had a blank firing gun (like a starter pistol), many of them are .22lr. That last shot attempted where it failed to fire does happens far more often with rim fire, such as a .22lr. Lastly, it would explain why he was not at all concerned with firing shots when it was questionable at best, and why he didn't hit the intended target once, even while firing slowly.
I do agree with everything else in his analysis. I'm not saying he 'did' have a starter pistol. I'm simply asking questions and making some observations. Of course, the question will come from that "Why would anyone carry a starter pistol?. I would guess the reason would be he's at work and his company (agency etc.) has a no firearms policy, and a starter pistol won't get him fired and is better than nothing. So, it still makes sense, and at least leaves the possibility open. I hope we find out what was bring used.
I wonder if he had hollow points, if so they probably expanded hitting the exterior door skin and probably wouldn’t make it through the interior door panel
Those gunshots do not look warranted, to me. The bad guy presented no lethal harm threat to the road dept employee. His last shot was from the side of the truck, not the front. Lesson learned – know when to pull out a weapon, and when not. This unfortunate guy – if he just let the truck be stolen, the guy drives away, and this guy goes home.
i would say it is logically reasonable to assume that someone stealing a car in this day and age is armed with something be it a hammer/window braker to smash the window a screwdriver to pop locks or some other kind of burglary tool that doubles as a makeshift weapon so normal non lethal means of preventing the theft instantly go out the window leaving you with either not having the right to defend your property because you do not know if thy are actually armed or not or leading to lethal force being logically necessary because of base logical assumptions
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
Short barrel, small caliber weapon or less than lethal pepper, ball or blanks.
Improper sight picture, improper handling, lack of practice, lack of proper instructions by a certified instructor. Any one of these means don't bring it.
What was behind his Target? A store. A store equals people.
Was he in immediate danger? No.
Was it his personal vehicle I.E his personal property? Doubtful.
If it was his personal property, does he have a legal right to protect it?
Depends on what State he's in. Texas, yes, New York, hell to the naw Even if he had your sister pinned to the ground after he popped five into a baby carriage. Did he move as quickly as he could to find cover after he fired? Unfortunately no.
I cannot stress enough that if you plan to carry, which I hope that everyone Law-Abiding citizen could, that you get proper training in self-defense, the law and at the range.
I feel terrible for this guy that got ran over and his family and I'm not trying to disrespect him at all but I must stress, be careful trying to be the hero or you may end up being the zero.
As for the perpetrator who hit him with the truck, well I see no mercy I can spare for him.
This is why I’ve always said just because you may have the right to own/carry a firearm doesn’t mean you should. Everyone should get training before carrying a firearm outside of their home.
And if I trusted the government, which I don’t, I would even say make it a law that you must complete a training course (not some online crap or non shooting course) before being allowed to carry in public. But since the government can’t be trusted, I wouldn’t advise that law currently.
Watching the video, the victim clearly and deliberately points the gun away from the guy every time he shoots. He was firing warning shots or "bluffing", however ill-advised that might be. He obviously wasn't trying to shoot the man.
Those couldn't have been real rounds. Those must have been blanks.
Hey now. Glad i caught this. I saw the clip with no context. Thanks for 'splainin.
Would he be ok to blast one of the tyres?
What being an idiot with a gun looks like
I want to know what injuries did the car jacker get, did he get shot at all ??
what was the caliber?
Just an aside, it's curious how the McDonald's magically became a Burger King (apparently). Just another testimonial to the accuracy of today's media coverage.
Why defend state property. Let them take it. Go to dinner with your wife later.
Andrew, will u ever resume your coverage of the Zachariah Anderson trial? Hopefully so.
..I'm sure his family, especially his brother would appreciate it
If ya pull your gun, ya gott kill. If ya gotta kill you better understand whats a legal homicide. Ya can't brandish. Ya can't shoot to "just injure" .. To shoot , you have to be defending against deadly force..Ya can't shoot for trespassing. Ya can't shoot for theft. Ya can only shoot to preserve LIFE. Especially in public.. A gun for us menial plebe "civilians" are a tool to get us to "safety". It's a defensive weapon. The only reason that someone can use a gun and have a good chance of not becoming the victim of the supposed "Justice System " like poor Mr Nick Miu, is when one CAN'T make an escape, against a deadly force attack. I think some people have very wrong ideas about how they're going to legally react to an assailant when they become a victim or victim adjacent. I feel bad for this guy..He would have been fired by his company even if he did survive. I'm certain a state employee having a firearm on the clock is a policy violation. Not that i agree in the slightest when it comes to workers who travel..Most jobs dont even allow non lethal defense tools.
my god. Thats like a scene from Pulp Fiction.
Youre wrong here Branca. This was the SECOND vehicle this man tried to steal. Before he got into the truck, he tried to carjack a woman's car. She sped off, and he want to the truck, to steal it. The guy shooting, saw this happen. Thats why the woman was filming, because it was an evolving scene.
There was absolutely, "defense of persons", when the man started shooting at him.
I think its obvious, he wasnt trying to kill him. I think he was trying to scare him with the shots. THAT is unlawful, and downright stupid, as the outcome proves.
I cant see him actually trying to shoot him, with misses from that distance.
Bottom line though, it wasnt basic defense of property. The shooter had witnessed him trying to carjack another person.
This can happen to anyone who shoots on the range every day and still does not hit the suspect. The reason why this guy missed was adrenaline. That changes everything! Police officers have missed shooting suspects at point-blank range as well.
I’ll be a little easier on him on the marksmanship than most are. Plenty of people who can shoot groups on paper all day long fall apart in their first force on force evolution with sims, including (especially) at very close range.
His primary errors were not marksmanship related. Leaving the door unlocked and engine running contributed hugely to his predicament. Pulling a gun and firing when life was not in imminent danger was a major error. Had he not shot at the badguy, badguy likely wouldn’t have run him over, shooting at badguy was an ego challenge.
One thing I found strange was the shots fired were at almost contact distance at the side window and the glass didn't break. I've seen those windows hit many times in both video and real life, and they blow out very quickly. I don't know if he had a revolver, but with the number of shots fired, it's certainly possible. Also, if he had a blank firing gun (like a starter pistol), many of them are .22lr. That last shot attempted where it failed to fire does happens far more often with rim fire, such as a .22lr. Lastly, it would explain why he was not at all concerned with firing shots when it was questionable at best, and why he didn't hit the intended target once, even while firing slowly.
I do agree with everything else in his analysis. I'm not saying he 'did' have a starter pistol. I'm simply asking questions and making some observations. Of course, the question will come from that "Why would anyone carry a starter pistol?. I would guess the reason would be he's at work and his company (agency etc.) has a no firearms policy, and a starter pistol won't get him fired and is better than nothing. So, it still makes sense, and at least leaves the possibility open. I hope we find out what was bring used.
I wonder if he had hollow points, if so they probably expanded hitting the exterior door skin and probably wouldn’t make it through the interior door panel
Those gunshots do not look warranted, to me. The bad guy presented no lethal harm threat to the road dept employee. His last shot was from the side of the truck, not the front. Lesson learned – know when to pull out a weapon, and when not. This unfortunate guy – if he just let the truck be stolen, the guy drives away, and this guy goes home.
Wow, my condolences, but that was some really bad shooting.
i would say it is logically reasonable to assume that someone stealing a car in this day and age is armed with something be it a hammer/window braker to smash the window a screwdriver to pop locks or some other kind of burglary tool that doubles as a makeshift weapon so normal non lethal means of preventing the theft instantly go out the window leaving you with either not having the right to defend your property because you do not know if thy are actually armed or not or leading to lethal force being logically necessary because of base logical assumptions