Police: Witness to iPhone theft shoots at suspects, faces own arrest

[pezDispenser]

Source: OregonLive.com

Gresham police say Witter, 48, was in an AT&T store at 533 Northwest Division Street in Gresham when two men stole multiple iPhones. Witter witnessed the theft and, instead of waiting for police, he took off after the men, firing at their getaway car.

He told police he intended to "shoot out the tires," but it is unclear where the rounds ended up, though police said he fired in a direct line with the Gresham City Hall Max station and the adjacent Park & Ride.

Witter, a customer at the store, told police he didn't feel that his own life – or anyone else's – was in danger. He said he was trying to help police. But instead he got himself into hot water.

Read more: http://www.oregonlive.com/gresham/index.ssf/2010/05/police_witness_to_iphone_theft.html

---

boy, I sure feel safe with people like this looking out for everyone!

[arcane1]

1. What a dumb-ass

well-meaning perhaps, but a dumb-ass nonetheless

[boppers]

2. I'm pretty sure he's going to lose his CCW over this.

CCW is up to a Sherrif's discretion, and they don't take kindly to morons discharging rounds over minor thefts.

[WheelWalker]

7. Actually, issuance of a CHL (concealed handgun license) in Oregon is NOT at the Sheriff's discretion

The statute is plain and simple. If you do not have a disqualifying circumstance/condition, and meet qualifications, they must issue. However, in this case, he as been charged with an offense and is on pre-trial release. That is one of the statutory reasons for denial/revocation of the CHL. If he's convicted of a misdemeanor, he won't qualify again for four years. A felony? DV? Never.

See ORS 166.291, et seq.

The language of the statute is Sheriff "shall issue..." if the applicant meets the statutory requirements. If you meet the standard and the Sheriff denies/revokes, the CHL applicant/holder has immediate access to judicial review on an accelerated docket, and if the Sheriff denied/revoked without a reasonable basis in fact based on the statutory criteria, the holder/applicant will recover costs and disbursements. Recovery of costs is not reciprocal if the Sheriff prevails, either.

Blessings.

[provis99]

3. well, this is in Oregon.

If he'd done this in Texas, the governor would have given him a medal for excessive gunplay.

[SpiralHawk]

4. Is there an APP for shit like this?

You know, a tire-shooter APP?

[Vinnie From Indy]

5. The man put God knows how many people in life threatening danger for a few dollars of AT&Ts

The phones were undoubtedly insured and probably cost AT&T at most $100 wholesale. In all honesty the man should never be allowed to own a firearm of any kind for the rest of his life. One can only imagine the horror if this guy would have shot and killed someone in the line of fire over some damn cell phones.

[Javaman]

8. I'm waiting for the day when some morons does just what this moron did

and hits several innocent bystanders.

[jazzhound]

6. This is the *third* thread on this subject. Granted, one of the conversations

was obliquely titled, but in the case of the other -- "IPhone thieves" would have been a good hint.

[tqla]

9. This is exactly why I am uneasy with "regular Joes" carring guns!

I am friends with a few Police officers and they are well trained and are never encouraged to shoot unless a life is in danger. Property is never a good reason. The "regular Joe's" own emotions and prejudices often get in the way and they are more apt to shoot first and ask questions later.

[TPaine7]

10. Police have been mob enforcers and hitmen, which is why I am uneasy with police carrying guns!

(Not really, but that's the kind of result one reaches using singular anecdotes to judge large groups.)

There are lots of interesting debates on gun policy and lots of extremely well informed people on DU. I try to contribute myself. For instance, in the thread linked below, I pointed out statistics showing the well know fact (in the gun forum, at least) that statistically speaking, civilians are safer and more effective in defensive shootings than are police officers. It's not the type of fact honest and well meaning folks are going to come across reading the New York Times or watching the evening news.

If you are honest and interested in real, objective and scientific comparisons between police officer and civilian shootings read the OP here-- http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x243633#243652 . See also my post 6 and the police officer post #30 (three posts down from the top).

Welcome to DU, I hope you enjoy yourself here.

[friendly_iconoclast]

11. You'd be surprised- most "regular Joes (and Janes)" are quite safe

Of course you will occasionally get idiots like the "Protector Of The Iphones", but most CCW permit holders are even
more law abiding than cops, as a group.

So sayeth the State of Texas. From one of the other threads:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=319783&mesg_id=319783

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=319783&mesg_id=319816

[safeinOhio]

12. As a group,

I never knew cops were all that law abiding. That is as a group, some are.