Ex-Space Force Sergeant Sentenced to 54 years for Shooting Teen Suspected of Stealing Car
A look at the consequences of misplaced compassion.
Legal Insurrection recently reported that as many as 1,700 National Guard troops will be deployed across 19 states in the coming weeks to support the Department of Homeland Security in President Donald Trump’s nationwide initiative targeting illegal immigration and crime.
This move shows that our major cities have been bereft of serious law enforcement for decades, and this situation was worsened in the wake of the BLM summer. It is wonderful news that the Trump administration considers crime control a serious matter.
For too long, the gang culture has been grooming young children and teens for a life of violence, theft, and death. Not only have their real talents and potential been squandered, but their actions have also destroyed the lives of many of their victims.
MARYLAND TEEN: A 16-year-old, arrested in connection with over 100 car break-ins across Maryland, was released just hours after being taken into custody, only to be arrested again shortly after for reoffending. pic.twitter.com/p0WlJ2xIHd
— @amuse (@amuse) May 29, 2025
I wanted to share a recent story that crossed my screen and broke my heart. A former U.S. Space Force sergeant, Orest Schur, was convicted and sentenced to 54 years in prison for the fatal shooting of 14-year-old Xavier Kirk and the wounding of a 13-year-old boy, both unarmed, during a suspected carjacking incident in Aurora, Colorado.
A former US Space Force sergeant who fired multiple rounds at two suspected carjackers outside his home, killing a 14-year-old, has been sentenced to over half a century in jail.
Orest Schur, 29, became emotional as he apologized for murdering 14-year-old Xavier Kirk before he was sentenced to 54 years in prison for the 2023 fatal shooting, the Adams and Broomfield Counties District Attorney’s Office announced.
“I am sorry for the events that occurred that night, for the pain, for the grief and trauma that have followed and for the impact that my case had on so many lives,” a tearful Schur told an Aurora, Colo., courtroom on Aug. 15.
The deadly shooting also left a 13-year-old hospitalized.
This is the “teen” car thief btw.
Orest Schur did nothing wrong. He chased down two would-be thieves and did what the government should have done: put one of them in the ground. https://t.co/piLeqOnp7v pic.twitter.com/DiSKyKqqOA
— Josiah Lippincott (@jlippincott_) August 20, 2025
At the time of the incident, Schur, then a technical sergeant with the US Space Force, was based in Aurora.
Because the courts, especially in the bluing state of Colorado, have been so lenient, teens roam the streets to steal cars from hard-working Americans. The salary of a US. Space Force sergeant is maybe $40,000 a year…which is not a luxury salary in Aurora. Likely, the car that the teen was stealing was his sole means of transportation.
Now, because of what Colorado considers “justice,” we lose the talents of this Space Force serviceman.
The supposed logic behind Schur’s conviction is that “teens make mistakes.”
Prosecutors read a statement in Friday afternoon’s court hearing written by the teen who survived. It said, “An adult chose to use deadly force against two unarmed teenagers. That is not justice, that is not safety, that is not accountability. I survived, but I am not the same. My friend didn’t survive at all. And no matter what we did that night, I didn’t deserve to be shot, and Xavier didn’t deserve to die.”
Before his sentencing, Schur addressed the court and pleaded for mercy, stating, “I am sorry for the events that occurred that night, for the pain, for the grief and trauma that have followed and for the impact that my case had on so many lives.
Schur will serve 36 years in prison for one count of second degree murder. For the count of attempted murder in the second degree, he will serve 18 years. The maximum overall sentence he could have received was 80 years in prison. The minimum was 26. He was taken away to begin his sentence immediately.
Those teens knew exactly what they were doing. Any compassion for them is misplaced.
And many are tired of the regrets for the “youthful mistakes” when they are expressed after the consequences have been unleashed.
I’d say life in jail for his “mistake” is far less punishment than what the person he murdered got https://t.co/ihar97DNgd
— Fusilli Spock (@awstar11) August 23, 2025
Hopefully, Trump’s use of the National Guard will reduce the number of young people being groomed for gangland crime. And, hopefully, the National Guard will offer in-person examples of how wonderful a life of service and dignity can be. They should be considered ambassadors for a better way of life.
But mostly, I am glad to see an administration concerned about law-abiding, tax-paying citizens and their families. Their lives have value, too.
Visitors to the U.S. capital pose for photos with the National Guard members who are helping to patrol public places under the command of the president. The deployment of the troops have been decried by Democrats & leftists as “fascist” and “authoritarian.”pic.twitter.com/Af57AkZJxu
— Andy Ngo (@MrAndyNgo) August 22, 2025
This is a state offense so Trump can’t pardon. We are organizing our country around feral animals. Something has gotta give.https://t.co/fWHdFjX3fQ
— Cernovich (@Cernovich) August 20, 2025
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
So CO throws the book at an upstanding citizen who wanted to stop another carjacking. Oh, D and other officials say, “carjacking isn’t so bad…..” Maybe in rich neighborhoods it isn’t but for those who need a car for work and other necessities, carjacking is not such a big deal. Pay attention, D “leaders” – MN has over 500 cars damaged in less than two weeks by roving gangs. NO ONE has been taken into custody.
This is insane – try to stop someone from a crime? Over react? But what if it was your car, your neighbor’s, etc. The punishment for this killing is far worse than many drug dealers, gang leaders, etc. will every see.
Well unfortunately that is the law in 49 states. Even Texas only gives a limited right to use deadly force for property crimes. You cannot use deadly force for stealing a car–especially out on the street. The charge and sentence in this case is way too high, but welcome to Blue Colorado.
Everyone with firearms needs to read Andrew Branca’s book on self defense. https://lawofselfdefense.com/?srsltid=AfmBOopQBXFee7p2KSTQ_Z2wgwEJvWQI4AKeF7Ikm_Z9xM7wdvJe12zf
As Attorney Branca has said many times, the law is not what we might like it to be, but rather it is the law as written. You need to know the law and how it applies.
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/06/02/are-people-allowed-to-use-deadly-force-to-defend-property Pretty good synopsis of the law.
Legally, this was NOT a carjacking. It was simply auto theft.
It’s well-settled law that deadly force can’t be used to stop property crimes, solely, unless the property owner reasonably fears imminent bodily harm or death from the perp’s/perps’ actions. You can disagree with that premise all you want, but, that’s the law as it is.
Brandishing the firearm, but not firing it, would have been the proper and lawful response, here.
Brandishing a firearm when you are not legally allowed to use it is also a crime. I guess he should have positioned himself in front of the car so his life would be in danger that they could run over him. He should have been given a six month sentence. IMO the 54 year sentence violates the 8th Amendment but it is clearly intended to send a clear message to the peasants not to resist violent criminals. The Democrat party is the party of the criminal class.
Depends entirely on your state.
Here in AZ, the Chads at AzCDL managed to get a law passed legitimizing “defensive display” of a firearm. It’s been used and it works.
54 years is excessive given that gangbangers get 15 for intentional murders, but a judgment for second degree murder is proper. 16 years with four off for good behavior, so 12 effectively, would be an appropriate sentence.
https://www.shootingnewsweekly.com/crime-and-punishment/houtson-homeowner-shoots-and-kills-two-men-in-ski-masks-dressed-as-police/ This story, fortunately, has a happier ending.
“Schur confronted the individuals, but the would-be carjackers fled in another car.
The sergeant gave chase in his car and fired multiple rounds at the teens.{”
*****
He likely would have been convicted in every State. Use of deadly force in defense of property is illegal in 49 states. Texas allows it in very restricted circumstances..
IMO, if you own a firearm that might be used in “self-defense”, at a minimum it’s worth reading Andrew Branca’s book: “Law of Self Defense”, about $10.00 Kindle price.
Yeah, Schur made several bad decisions that make this a very bad shoot.
The two would be thieves immediately ran away when he first came out to his car. The two then got in a vehicle and fled. Schur wasn’t in any imminent danger at that point. Instead of calling 911 he gets in his vehicle and chased them (becoming the aggressor) popping off rounds as he did so Ultimately they crash and he confronted them (maintaining his role as the aggressor) then to make matters far worse he shot both of them in the back as the would be thieves attempted to flee on foot.
It’s important to remember, as well, that even police in several states cannot shoot at a fleeing felon unless he poses an imminent danger to others.
I thought this was that case. This article is a seriously bad take. You should hide it before Andrew sees it.
The kids are dirtbags, surely. But you don’t jump in your car and chase them down the road in a hail of bullets. Of all the bad shoots I’ve heard of since Justine Damond, this one is the baddest.
Is it possible that Space Force cadets get no firearms training?
And a person in the military should certainly know better.
I’m in agreement that this is a bad shoot. For crying out loud, he had his car and was using it to pursue. Who thinks this is a good idea?
There is zero chance to pass this as self defense. You can’t even pass this as defense of property (which would still be illegal with a firearm) at the point when he shot them.
Think of it as defense of society. Maybe fine him for littering.
You are correct. But in my opinion, one dead thug is one less thug the nation needs to contend with.
The “teen” won’t be committing any more crimes.
Agreed…I won’t mourn him. I mourn the man who can be accused of making a major mistake in a situation that does not allow for them.
Ah. I didn’t check the byline until I saw these comments. Turns out this article was written by Leslie Eastman. If I’d noticed this up front, I wouldn’t have wasted my time reading it.
She is a typical modern “journalist” who has very little concern with minor details like “accuracy” and “truth”.
I called her out on one incident a while back and she told me, in no uncertain terms, that if I don’t like being mislead by her articles, I shouldn’t read them.
So I usually don’t. This one snuck by and I read it without looking at the byline.
Shame on me. Anyway, considering who wrote this article, the fact that she left out a pretty important element of the story is not at all surprising to me.
Chasing fleeing, unarmed criminals down and shooting them is not “self defense” under any state’s laws of which I’m aware. There are some instances where I’d support the “he needed killin'” defense, but this probably wasn’t one of them.
On the plus side, maybe the survivor of this incident will be “scared straight” by it and choose a more upstanding line of work in the future.
Probably not, but one can hope.
Yes, after reading the comments that tell the whole story, I agree with you. Whoever wrote this article did a disservice to everyone. Legal Insurrection should be ashamed for posting such a biased, factually inaccurate story.
@rwingjr, you know what the funny part is? I first learned about this story and how bad of a shoot it was from the least likely of sources: NOT THE BEE, who actually got it right!
https://notthebee.com/article/vet-gets-54-years-in-jail-for-killing-black-teen-who-tried-to-steal-his-car-youre-gonna-want-to-read-this-one-if-you-carry-a-blaster-for-defense
I saw it was a story tailor-made to trap less scrupulous right-wingers. That’s why when I clicked on this Legal Insurrection article, I was on high alert, and sadly, this was the result. It’s sad when your own side gets caught in these traps. It’s even more sad when you see people say things like “laws or not,” Umm… my dude. We must live within the law, especially law that keeps our 2A culture safe and on the straight and narrow. I learned about those laws from no less than Massad Ayoob, not exactly a paragon of leftist progressive virtue! But some of these guys really want to go back to 100% tribal society.
Of course, the Founders would spit on anyone who supported this idiotic position. Private property is the KEY to free society. Almost all individual liberties flow from private property rights. This growing lack of respect for the sanctity of private property in America is a cancer that leads to dark, nasty places.
I actually agree with you and if the criminals in this case hadn’t already been fleeing, you’d have a point.
But there’s a big difference between shooting someone in the act of taking your stuff and shooting someone who was already scared off and was running away.
Especially when you had to chase them down in a car to do it.
The most fundamental of property rights is the right to protect the property of our LIVES. All other property is an extension of that. He should’ve simply claimed he ‘felt threatened.’ Works for cops 99.9999% of the time.
As I understand things, it used to be lawful to use deadly force to protect property. In 1989 and then in 1990 USSC overruled many centuries of common and statute law (not to mention common sense) to say that such force was unconstitutional.
That said, I don’t want any member of an American armed service to violate civilian laws.
The guy’s cause might have been just. But he’s a killer.
Pursuing them and firing off rounds was not a good choice. Once they sped off in another car he should have either let them go or followed them and kept on the line with police letting them know where they were preferably the first since he didn’t get his car stolen.
They actually read a moral impact statement from one of the feral scumbags?
Wow
Just, wow
They can do that in sentencing. However, I seriously doubt he actually wrote it. Even straight A students in high school don’t write that well and most teen criminals are flunkers (or D students which is now the new flunker due to widespread grade manipulation)
I doubt he wrote it also.
That much is fairly obvious.
I think allowing those was one of the inflection points bending our justice system toward failure.
Of course, Colorado didn’t even consider making the surviving “teen” subject to the felony murder provision. Does he just get to walk away now?
This has to be overturned by someone somewhere
Unfortunately, there is a near-zero chance of that happening. The very best he could hope for is a grant of clemency after serving a decade. But, considering the ideological direction of Colorado over the last 20-years, I think it’s unlikely his chances for clemency increasing as time passes. He will almost certainly serve 2x, maybe 3x or 4x the time in prison the average convict convicted of child sexual assault will face in that state.
He’s a white guy who unalived a black thug. He’s going to prison where the likelihood of the prison population is predominantly black thugs. (All innocent of course).
He won’t survive 2 years.
Good point.
I absolutely agree that property and its defense is basic to a free life. It isn’t just property. It’s the time and effort put into acquiring it, However, chasing down would-be thieves in your car is going too far. That is vigilante stuff. And, no, in reply to another comment, apparently Space Force recruits don’t get much training.
The libertarians have an insightful formula:
Who steals my life robs me of my future;
Who steals my liberty robs me of my present;
Who steals my property robs me of my past.
It’s not widely known, but the formula “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” was originally written by John Stuart Mill (I think) as “life, liberty, and property. Jefferson changed it in the Declaration of Independence because he didn’t want to reignite digressions over whether people could be property.
No it doesn’t
One bite at the ‘not yet adult teen made a mistake apple’ is more than enough. If you want to show compassion then apply the max sentence but suspend most of it based on strict adherence to provision of probation to include GED/HS graduation and anger/emotional regulation program and very visible community service picking up trash after school and weekends for the duration. The next crime should be at minimum incarceration until 21. Personally I’d prefer an immediate presumption for removal to adult court system on any probation violation or subsequent criminal charges. Let them be required to overcome the presumption before any second chances within juvenile system or diversion programs are offered. Make that a part of sentencing after the jury makes a sentence forcing the Judge to override the jury and substitute his own judgment. Then make the results into a ‘tracker’ so the public can see which Judges make consistent errors of judgement at next election.
While I like your ideas, they don’t work because incarceration makes the juvies worse (safety, bad influences, etc.). If there was a way to fix the environment, then the sense it makes in theory could match the practice.
LOL.
Worse than what?
We can change the nature of incarceration. First there should be minimal to no contact with anyone other than cell mate. Second any breach of discipline results in being swarmed by guards and taken to solitary for two days and additional time added for any additional crimes and violation of prison rules. They lose their exercise and family visiting privileges for a period TBD by severity of disciplinary infraction.
Prisoners should not be running the prisons. Put them into two person cells. Their food is brought to them, they are pulled out to go to their assigned outdoor exercise period (30 minutes daily) then shower then straight back to cell. One book in cell each at a time. One weekly phone call opportunity. One monthly 2 hour opportunity for family visitation separated by plexiglass. No frills, no ‘store’ to buy extra comfort items or snacks. No TV. No Internet. No radio. They can send/receive mail but it is monitored, screened read by staff just as family visit and phone calls are monitored and recorded.
Juvenile offenders get additional mandatory instruction opportunity to earn GED, four hours per day in classroom. Ten prisoners in each class. Any breach of discipline results in immediate loss of instruction opportunity for six months. Make earning GED a condition of release. Failure to earn it and they stay till age 21. Use violence as the aggressor and go to adult prison where there’s even more restrictions.
OMG! You make it sound like PRISON or something!
Yeah, I’m told I have ‘old fashioned views’.
I don’t think you understand just how retarded these teens are.
Part of the problem is seeing incarceration as rehabilitative. Go back to seeing it as punishment and leave it be.
And note that, in our Constitution, slavery is not banned. It is only restricted to punishment for criminals.
13th Amendment, Sec 1:
People seem to have forgotten (many, on purpose) that convicts are legitimately enslaved by the state.
Serving time at hard labor needs to be brought back for a whole bunch of crimes.
Agree with labor. Make them too tired to be criminals.
Oh, the teen-word
Deadly force is “acceptable” when there is an imminent threat to life or grave injury. By definition, there is no threat if the situation switched to pursuit of the thieves.
Nevertheless, the penalty is unbelievably excessive. Schur failed every litmus test for leniency in Colorado: he’s white, a veteran and a gun owner. He made a mistake, but the DA is clearly sending a message.
Some states also have a requirement to “retreat” if possible before deadly force can be used.
Which is immoral.
Yep. The DA is sending the message that black privilege is alive and well.
“Should teens really be charged like grown men?
How old do you have to be to know that stealing cars is major bad?
The interesting followup question here is, how many times did these kids do crimes previously and get let off? And since they’re kids, we’ll never know.
For an average person with an IQ of 100 I’d say 6-7. For this clown maybe never. In some cultures and gangs stealing cars is probably a rite of passage.
LI needs Andrew Branca on this story
Looks like the judge and the prosecutor, who charged Mr. Schur with first degree murder and first degree attempted murder, were trying to demonstrate their tough on crime bona fides. Maybe Harvard can offer the survivor of the “attack” a scholarship.
Yeah, “premeditation” is hard to justify given the facts in this story.
Lawyers like to claim that “premeditation” can take place in an instant, as the person pulls the trigger with intention. It’s lunacy but the courts have blessed this sort of idiocy that makes a mockery of the law.
“Prosecutors read a statement in Friday afternoon’s court hearing written by the teen who survived.”
If you believe the thug wrote that, I recommend watching some body cams videos to hear the educational level of thugs who steal cars.
I’m with the folks in the thread started by SHV above. This LI article is missing some major context, namely that the two teens fled in their car once confronted by the armed homeowner, who then gave chase in his own vehicle while, apparently, shooting at their car from his own, and when they crashed and piled out, the homeowner stopped, got out, and kept shooting them, killing one.
The window for legal use of deadly force, if it was ever open (quite possible), had closed LONG ago, when the two teens fled in their car. You cannot claim to believe you were in danger of death or severe injury after pursuing and shooting back like that. He lost the mantle of innocence once he did that, and self defense was off the table. He would have been convicted in even the most diehard pro-self-defense & 2A land. This is not the way.
The laws that you describe (especially in states with the idiotic “duty to retreat” lunacy) are sheer idiocy. You don’t get to take a free shot at me and then run away and not have to worry about me doing anything. Sure, I get it, there are laws that say that, but it is unreasonable and stupid and any decent person on a jury would nullify that charge.
People who prey on innocents with violence have given up their rights. It was their choice and they made it. Laws or not, everyone with a bit of common sense understands that and any single person on that jury with even a shred of decency would have refused to convict.
“The laws that you describe (especially in states with the idiotic “duty to retreat” lunacy) are sheer idiocy.”
I didn’t reference any law except the most basic of deadly force justification legal fundaments. You can only use deadly force on another if you are in fear of imminent, unavoidable death/great bodily harm. I didn’t mention duty to retreat at all. This guy PURSUED them.
“You don’t get to take a free shot at me and then run away and not have to worry about me doing anything.”
The teens didn’t take a shot at the homeowner. They were unarmed (not super important when in the dark), and fled at the first encounter with the homeowner. They didn’t “take a shot.”
“People who prey on innocents with violence have given up their rights.”
I fully agree. But these teens were not committing violence on the homeowner. They were committing violence on his car. His PROPERTY. It’s different. You can defend life with deadly force. That is literally self defense. The grounds for defending property alone are not as strong.
“Laws or not,”
I’m afraid we need to live within the law sir, especially when they are so fundamental and common to all 50 states in the Union. How can we consider ourselves to be “lawful gun owners?”
“everyone with a bit of common sense understands that and any single person on that jury with even a shred of decency would have refused to convict.”
I’m afraid you do not understand the vast number of people who will end up on a jury. They will not agree with you on this. Like. 90% of Americans (I hope).
“You don’t get to take a free shot at me and then run away and not have to worry about me doing anything.”
Alan Korwin’s book, “Supreme Court Gun Cases,” is interesting bedtime reading for the wonk. One of the earliest cases on record concerns a couple of cowboys in a bar. One of them slapped or struck another one, then walked away and leaned against the bar. The struck one walked up to him and hit him back, eventually escalating into gunplay, and the original striker lost the battle. The Supreme Court ruled, in perfect consistency, that once the first cowboy had walked away from the fight the second cowboy started a new fight and was now the aggressor. Like it or not, this rule is long-standing.
This is insane. That 14 year old would have murdered someone eventually – likely more than one – until someone else finally took him out (most likely someone else on the street over nothing). The 13 year old carjacker will demonstrate in the coming years what a menace to society he is (though we’ll never know because of his juvenile records being sealed).
Schur is just the latest human sacrifice to the savage mobs. Our country needs to make a sharp, quick turn away from this sort of insanity. The inmates are running the asylum. This sort of thing is unsustainable, so it is going to stop at some point – one way or another.
Primordial… the Legal Insurrection article left out some VERY important details of this shooting. Read from the New York Post article linked to above:
“Schur, then a technical sergeant with the US Space Force based in Aurora, was awakened by a car alarm outside his apartment around 11 p.m. July 5, 2023.
“The then-27-year-old grabbed a pistol and ran outside to his Hyundai Elantra, where he spotted two people dressed in all black attempting to break into the car.
“Schur confronted the individuals, but the would-be carjackers fled in another car.
“The sergeant gave chase in his car and fired multiple rounds at the teens.
“The fleeing car crashed into the backyard fence of a home four blocks south of Schur’s residence.
“Kirk and his teen accomplice hopped out of the damaged car and began running away as Schur continued to fire.
“Kirk was found suffering from gunshot wounds to the head and back. He was transported to a local hospital and pronounced dead.
“The 13-year-old, who was driving the getaway car, was shot in the back and managed to get to a relative’s house before being brought to a hospital and survived.”
The teens were totally wrong, and had they been shot right when they were confronted, this may have been a justified use of deadly force in self defense, sue to the darkness, their dark clothing, and hostility of their actions. But look at what happened before the fatal shots were taken. He lost the claim to self defense WAY before. The law doesn’t consider the future, or even the past. The law is only concerned with the present, and what the actors know of each other. I’m afraid this was simply a HELL of a bad shoot.
https://nypost.com/2025/08/20/us-news/ex-space-force-sergeant-orest-schur-sentenced-to-54-years-in-prison-for-fatally-shooting-suspected-teen-car-thief-in-colorado/
Any decent person on the jury should have nullified.
He was justified in shooting the menaces. It’s a shame that more people don’t do this.
The fact that they couldn’t get one half-decent person of 12 on that jury is more distressing than the BS case.
I’m afraid you are way outside of the understanding of the law on this one sir. I hope you don’t ever have to rely on your understanding of justified use of deadly force, because you will likely get yourself locked up with this mindset.
If you noticed, I sidestepped “the law” by appealing to jury nullification.
I am well aware of the insane laws. People have a duty to refuse to convict when they are on juries and confronted with them.
Killing someone the way this man did, yes, that will get you in trouble. Nullifying attempts to convict persons who found themselves being made victims of criminals and killing them, no. You can’t get locked up for that.
Behave properly yourself, but vow to never convict a person who kills a criminal. Just don’t do it.
Here’s a question: Was the survivor charged? Because he and his deceased buddy started a sequence of events that resulted in the death of someone. That should have resulted in a murder charge for the accomplice, even though the killing was done by someone else. Because if it weren’t for their instigation of a crime, the other kid wouldn’t have been killed. If the state is looking for someone to blame for the death, it’s the surviving criminal, not the victim who was placed into an situation without his consent. I’m tired of victims being victimized by government because criminals forced them into situations not of their own (the victim’s) making.
DaveGinOly has it right. The just thing is to ALSO charge the 13yo with Felony Murder – that is, it’s murder because someone died while you were in the act of a felony. This applies (to at least some extent) all the way from charging the getaway driver when his bank robber buddies shoot the guard to the guard having a heart attack while the robbers are in the vault. And, IIRC, it also applies even when the person dies because someone else commits a felony in response to their felony.
And this is the sort of thing where our current legal authorities are falling down on the job.
Most, if not all of us here at Legal Insurrection, are aware that that, according to the law, this was bad shoot, especially given that this site hosts Andrew Branca,
Most, if not all of us here at Legal Insurrection, are aware that that, according to the law, this was bad shoot, especially given that this site hosts Andrew Branca, so you don’t have to lecture us, especially multiple times.
The collective point we are all making is, we are fed up and when people are fed up, they do things they wouldn’t normally do.
This guy was serving his country and these feral youths, the usual suspects of course, turn his life upside down and try to steal what is likely his only form of transportation.
My heart breaks for this guy and to be perfectly honest, I’m more concerned with his soul than anything else, but that’s something he’ll have to reconcile with God.
Everybody knows this crap needs to end, but other than President Trump, nobody wants to actually do anything about it.
This is what happens when that attitude is prevalent.
I have nothing but contempt; utter contempt for those who can do some about this, but refuse, and that refusal is more than likely couched in politics.
This was a great country when I was growing up, but now, because the vast majority of our politicians and leaders don’t give a fuck about anything but their next reelection, it’s turning into a shithole.
Everyone knows that the majority of our societal ills are directly relatable to a certain, small percentage of the population.
Everyone knows this
This can’t continue
Yes, let’s start murdering people because if we don’t, they’ll murder someone eventually. Because, WE KNOW. (sarcasm)
You are truly a fucking idiot.
Oh c’mon. Read the details of the case. He ran out of his house, got in his own car (which wasn’t the one being broken into), chased them until they crashed, and then shot them. The kid he killed was shot in the back, and the head. Then he LIED and said they shot at him, which they did not (this was established by an extensive investigation). His own life was never in danger. This humble, aw-shucks then-Space Force serviceman acted as a vigilante. If they were breaking into a car, then I don’t like his victims either. But this scumbag got what his stupid ass deserved.
To be clear, he caused them to crash by shooting at them, and kept shooting after they crashed. It’s repugnant that LI posted this garbage. Not surprising that it’s a Leslie Eastman piece.
Do you understand why he went vigilante on them? It’s because the left has completely abandoned the rule of law when it comes to criminals. I live in a catch and release state and it’s pretty well understood that we are on our own. Many crimes aren’t even reported because if the victim knows who the perpetrator is, they or their families take care of business to make sure the perpetrator never poses a threat to anyone again.
Sorry, I don’t care about that any more.
If on jury refuse to convict. Never punish a person reacting to criminal activity. Make it known that you can, indeed, get away with killing criminals out of hand. Even thieves have already decided that your property is worth the risk of their lives. But the law makes the risk dependent on the victim risking his own liberty when he uses force, tilting the table towards the criminal, rather than the victim.
I say when a criminal is killed in response to a crime (or an attempted crime), the person responsible for the death is already dead. The state should look no further for the responsible party than the person initiating the events that lead to the death. If the state won’t tip the table in the victim’s favor, that chore is left up to the jury. And that means you if you ever find yourself in one and sitting on such a case.
Sorry, no. Without laws and equal application thereof, we revert to the jungle. I accept that these ideals are not realized in many places and situations, but the solution to lawlessness is not more lawlessness. That said, the surviving kid should should be tried for whatever crimes he committed during this incident.
Show us where “equal application thereof” is practiced.
“Without laws and equal application thereof, we revert to the jungle.”
The ironic thing about this statement is that you can read it as either a defense of the jury’s ruling, or a defense of the soldier’s action, depending on what side of the line you think we have already achieved.
Your argument is a good one sir.
If you’d written this in a less vitriolic manner, people might have heard what you had to say. Instead, you spat hatred at the author and at the sergeant.
And he saved the future victims of the 14 year old … though the 13 year old monster will probably still take quite a few out before his time on Earth is finished.
Leslie Eastman. The right-wing equivalent of an African American Studies major.
Typical
You scumbags equivocate everything….
Reselyup. The left-wing equivalent of a wet fart in an elevator.
“Those teens knew exactly what they were doing. Any compassion for them is misplaced”
Exactly. These kids behavior may be feral but they do know right from wrong. They are expecting their age to save them from their actions.
Not just expecting but counting on. It is part of their mission plan. They are specifically chosen for this work because of their special immunity.
Schur should be given a Citizen’s Participation Award for services rendered.
And no matter what we did that night, I didn’t deserve to be shot, and Xavier didn’t deserve to die.
Well, this is patently untrue. You’re predators and they prey decided to fight back. You did deserve this.
However, the proximate reason this man went to prison is because the LAW says you are not allowed to use deadly force over property. He broke the law.
Having said that, I think the law is an ass in that respect.
I agree that this article was quite badly written in that it left out some very important contextual facts and any mention of the relevant law. IMO, the first thing that the defendant did wrong was to choose to exit his home armed with a gun in the first place. He was evidently reacting out of rage, which is not a good thing to do when armed with a deadly weapon. I don’t know if he had previously been a victim of crime, causing him to overreact, but he clearly violated the law pertaining to the use of deadly force in defense of property and took the life of another person in the process.
yet the criminals THE REAL ONES are allowed to have their emotional characters used as a defense
so since HE is now the criminal why wasnt he afforded the same??
I don’t know that he wasn’t, although his emotional state wouldn’t constitute a legal defense to the crimes he was charged with under any circumstances. First of all, I don’t understand why, on these facts, he went to trial instead of pleading and maybe getting a break on sentencing. I also don’t know whether he testified at his trial, or, if he did, that he introduced evidence of his emotional state that the jury or judge just didn’t buy. I don’t know whether his emotional state was part of the pre-sentence report submitted to the court after he was convicted. There are a lot of things I just don’t know about in this case.
Because forget it, Jake, it’s Chinatown. .
You realize this story about 140 years ago would have been “Colorado governor praises Yankee soldier who attacked two horse thieves, chased them down and shot them both.”
completely expected as the complacent gop has allowed the lefty takeover by caving and joining their narrative
lefty is an animal bent on destroying western civilization
they talk about it allll the time
maga!
Did you notice the picture the news showed of one of the perps? Innocent little boy with a soccer ball. They do the same thing with “victims” all the time! Will media EVER tell the real story? EVER?
The ‘wild west’ was wild because law enforcement wasn’t possible. Today, civilization is becoming ever more wild not because law enforcement isn’t possible, but because achieving justice for victims is no longer the goal.
Civilization demands justice. To whom shall the victims of crime turn when justice is not implemented? What is the value of a civilization that lacks justice?
We’re witnessing the lack of justice in our everyday lives in our cities, towns, streets and homes. We are only pretending to be civilized.
I feel sorry for the guy, this is undeniably tragic.
That said, every single responsible and well-informed firearms owner should know and understand that it’s well-settled law that deadly force cannot be used in defense of property, solely.
This is Self-Defense law, 101. You cannot shoot at perps stealing your motorcycle or breaking into your car, unless you reasonably fear death or imminent bodily harm; e.g., one of the perps brandishes a knife or a gun.
To clarify, in the hypo mentioned above, I’m assuming that the property owner is on his/her front stoop, or, on the sidewalk. Obviously, if he/she were inside the car at the time that it was being carjacked/stolen, no weapon need be displayed by the perps to create a reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm or death, in my opinion.
These situations and the legal analysis applied are exceptionally fact-dependent and change based on the circumstances.
“That is not justice, that is not safety, that is not accountability.”
Does this mean that the accomplice who survived was not charged with felony murder or anything else?
Horse theft in the Old West was technically a “property crime,” but I don’t think anyone would face significant backlash for using deadly force in that setting. Losing your horse could result in your death. Losing your car can result in maybe not death, but all kinds of unpleasant things. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Gene pool improved.