A North Carolina man is facing felony charges of assault with a deadly Weapon with intent to kill and inflicting serious injury and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill after shooting a juvenile who allegedly stole tools from the man’s truck.
The Nash County Sheriff’s Office says the shooting happened late on Friday in a rural area about 35 miles northwest of Raleigh, after homeowner Zachary Bryant woke up to the sounds of his dogs barking.
He looked out of his home to see two males running from his truck, then jump into a red vehicle, officials said. An inspection of the truck revealed tools were missing from his toolbox, he told investigators.
He then armed himself and was standing outside his home when he encountered a vehicle that matched the one seen driving away, officials said. “As the vehicle traveled down Savage Road, Mr. Bryant fired multiple shots at the car, allegedly attempting to disable the vehicle,” officials said. “As the vehicle passed him, one of the rounds struck the driver in the head.”
The Nash County District Attorney’s Office is reviewing the case “and charges regarding the juveniles are pending further investigation,” officials said.
The sheriff’s post on Facebook has drawn a lot of criticism from commenters who are incensed that Bryant is facing charges for protecting his property. Here’s a sampling:
- Soo he protected his property and dwelling and he’s the one locked up? Their are multiple issues with this.
- I guess you let them take your car or whatever they want and you simply stop them by saying, “Stop I’m calling the police.” Yeah right!
- A “juvenile” should’ve been home at 10 pm and not out trying to steal from other people. It’s a hard lesson, but this man should NOT be in jail facing felony charges and an expensive future whether financially or his freedom.
- Praying for Zachary, he is a good person! Nobody should be charged for protecting their property!
Here’s the issue: while North Carolina has both a Castle Doctrine statute that allows folks to defend themselves in their home, vehicle, or business and a Stand Your Ground provision that doesn’t require them to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense, the state doesn’t allow for lethal force to be used solely in defense of someone stealing your stuff. And according to the sheriff, Bryant had no reasonable belief that his life was in danger when he fired the shots.
“Bryant was away from his residence, outside of the path of the vehicle with no concern of the vehicle striking him,” officials said. “Mr. Bryant appeared to have tried to disable the vehicle’s tires with a firearm as the vehicle was passing him. The vehicle and the occupants appeared to be attempting to leave. Which at this point, does not meet the criteria for a justified used of deadly force.”
Like it or not (and clearly a lot of folks in Nash County are in the “not” camp), it’s not legal in North Carolina to use lethal force to defend property alone. If Bryant had shot at the vehicle to prevent being struck, or if any of the thieves had threatened him with harm while stealing his tools, he might not be facing charges today. But it’s incumbent on us as gun owners to know the circumstances when we can use our firearm in defense of self or others, as we as if we’re justified in using lethal force in defense of property alone.
Having said that, I suspect that if prosecutors move forward with their case against Bryant a fairly lenient plea deal will likely be on the table, at least if the suspected tool thief survives his injuries. If the case against Bryant were to go to trial, there’s always a chance that a jury of his peers might fall in line with a majority of the comments on the sheriff’s Facebook post, and I’m not sure that the D.A. would want to roll the dice on an outright acquittal.
I understand the frustration of some punks coming in and stealing your stuff, not to mention watching them drive away. But real life isn’t Hollywood, and shooting to disable the tires was likely going to end up badly for Bryant from a legal perspective, even he had no designs on shooting anyone inside the car. It might have felt justified in the moment, but in the eyes of the law it was a decision that could come with a lifetime of consequences.
Read the full article here
