A Tale of Two Driveway Shootings
Two news stories crossed my desk today that have some remarkable similarities and yet have very different outcomes. They both lack in critical details which make the effort of contrasting them somewhat impossible.
Both are what I historically have called “Driveway Shootings.”
What is a Driveway Shooting
What would you do if you saw this on your external home security camera?
I made up this term to describe a common fact pattern I see often in defensive gun uses (commonly called DGUs). The fact pattern looks like this:
Homeowner thinks or knows bad guys are breaking into and/or attempting to steal his/her car that is parked in the driveway.
Homeowner grabs guns and exits the home to confront the bad guys.
Bad guys don't like being caught so they shoot at homeowner.
Homeowner shoots back.
Driveway Shooting #1 – Chicago, IL Far South Side March 25th
A “concealed carry holder” called 911 to report that when he saw two men breaking into his car, he confronted them and ultimately shot one of them in both legs.
In a fun twist of fate, the twice shot bad guy also called 911 to claim he was shot in a drive-by and asked for medical help. Sadly for him the cops put 2 and 2 together.
It isn't clear if the bad guys shot at the concealed carry holder first or how he would be legally justified in just shooting at someone for doing nothing more than trying to break into his car but the news story doesn't mention any criminal charges so somehow I assume this turned into self-defense.
Driveway Shooting #2 – Loveland, Colorado March 22nd
Two people dressed in all black tried to enter the homeowner's vehicle. As the homeowner approached the two people, they “ran away and fired several shots as they did so.”
The homeowner was struck by at least one bullet but had no life-threatening injuries, according to the police.
The suspects are still at large.
You Increase Risk When You Interact with Criminals
From a driveway shooting in which the “good guy” is facing a wrongful death lawsuit after gunning down someone trying to break into his car.
I love my vehicle. My Toyota Tacoma has been nothing but good to me, so I really don't want to see it stolen or vandalized. However, I like to think that if I had reason to believe that some people were in my driveway forcing their way into it right now that I would just place a call to 9-1-1 and not get involved.
If for some reason I felt I needed to intervene, I would do so with extreme caution, utilizing strong cover and important tactics to minimize risk.
When you engage criminals when they are committing crime your risk of being hurt, injured, or dying increases above zero. You might be the best shooter and tactician in the world, but your risk is still greater than it would have been if you had stayed out of the situation.
Is the risk worth the reward?
Above, we have two very non-descript examples. In one of them, the bad guys take injuries and the good guy prevails. In the other, the good guy gets shot and the bad guys are at large. How confident can you be about your outcome when you walk out of your castle into the open yard and driveway to protect your vehicle?
Don’t know where you live, but around where I live (western Washington state) calling 911 is a joke. Might as well not bother. Let me flip this around for you: why not create a situation where the CRIMINAL has to wonder if the risk is worth the reward? If that situation existed, methinks criminality would go WAY down.
An intruder alarm system which sounds a loud alarm plus the following message;
“This system has your image and DNA. You will be tracked, arrested and prosecuted.
Leave now for your own protection!!”
Criminals always consider risk versus reward!
Technology has and can make a difference.
I have been blessed so far with fairly responsive police response. But, where I live, going out a narrow slit (door) makes it easier for hood rats to shoot you. Also, being formerly in law enforcement, several ambushes have been initiated in both America and abroad, where ambushers mess with the target’s vehicle to intentionally bring them out of their secure residence to an open street to attack them. While I love my cars, I love myself more. I learned the hard way to strip my vehicle of anything that would cause me to come out to recover that particular item (keys, for instance). Let them have it, get the police report and as much cellphone footage as you can for insurance, and your bosses if they are in the habit of not believing your excuses for being late to work.
Clark Kent has it exactly correct. Call it whatever you want; ROI, Risk v Reward, etc but only if a criminal fears the consequences of his actions do they not make the choice to engage in anti social behavior. It’s no different than the 1st grade bully wanting your lunch money; if he gets away with it today he’ll want it again tomorrow, then the next day, until the risk outweighs the reward. Need more evidence ? Look at the results of “cashless bail” or non prosecution for crimes under a certain dollar amount…shoplifters literally filling a shopping cart and walking out because they aren’t afraid of the consequences. IMO the only error the people in your examples made was not using cover and confronting the thieves with a handgun instead of a rifle or shotgun.
I love my car too (it’s paid off). But it is insured and theft is a covered cause of loss. As it will be replaced, it is not worth a lethal confrontation where you might take a round or you may kill another (dirt-bag or not).