Business owner/Vietnam veteran hit with felony charges over shot
Reader Neil sends this story from the Rochester (NY) Democrat and Chronicle about a business owner facing felony charges after shooting out the tire of a would-be robber:
Above all, John O’Connor said, he regrets pulling the trigger.
The Vietnam veteran and small-town councilman, who often packs a shotgun, said he had caught dozens of burglars over the past 30 years at his auto repair and salvage business and turned them over to Ontario County sheriff’s deputies. But never before did he feel the need to fire his weapon.
Awakened by an alarm system late on Nov. 25, O’Connor drove to his shop near the hamlet of Honeoye and came upon a trespasser, who ran away. After alerting police, he spotted a second man in a car and shot out a tire when the car roared off.
Two suspects, Aaron Fuoco, 27, and Brian Jarvis, 32, were arrested at their homes the next day and charged with sixth-degree criminal trespass and conspiracy, both misdemeanors.
“They were thieves in the night, robbing my business,” a visibly distraught O’Connor, 60, said after a brief court appearance Wednesday night on a felony charge of third-degree criminal mischief. “I will have to fight this all the way.”
If convicted, he could get up to 16 months to four years in prison, lose his business dealer’s license and have to resign from the Canadice Town Board. A preliminary hearing in Ontario County Court was set for Jan. 16.
O’Connor’s business has frequently been targeted by burglars and almost all his tools were stolen on two occasions in the 1980s, according to his lawyer.
This is insane.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Guns
Gateway Pundit
» John McCain's Mother and Daughter Abused By Leftist (Video)JustOneMinute
» Now The Surge Is Succeeding?Little Miss Attila
» Well, You Know: G.W. Bush Didn't Vet His VP, Either.Stop The ACLU
» Call Obama (Uh-bama) a WAAAAH!bulance!JustOneMinute
» Boys Will Be Boys?Redstate
» The Maverick Does It His WayWeekly Standard
» A Shrum Victory at Last?
The way the justice system works these days you wonder if he won’t get more time than the guys ripping off his business…..
I think he’ll be OK.
I notice with interest that the alleged perpetrators are charged with misdemeanors, while the business owner is charged with a felony for protecting his business.
Seems like there’s more and more insanity these days - like the inmates are running the asylum. Where’s the REAL Nurse Ratched when you need her?
The thieves should consider themselves lucky it was a tire that got shot. The possibility of getting shot should always be in the mind of anyone considering burglary. The law would be foolish and misguided to take that possibility away.
They could have come across Joe Horn’s sight and the tire never would have been a subject. Wood coffins would be the story.
Bad things that happen as a result of a robbery are the responsibility of the robber. Even if a bystander was hurt by a bouncing pellet, it is the direct result of the robbery and the owners right to defend himself and his property. Defense of person and property is both a right and a responsibility.
Tell him to relocate to Texas, here he would be well within his rights to shoot to kill the next time someone tries to rob his business at night.
Doesn’t everybody understand??? He is a big, bad, rich business owner threatening the lives of two nice young men who were only taking what they are entitled to have….let’s be fair now.
Inbelievable!
Of course the bureaucrats are going to prosecute. Any private citizen who shows how inept the police system really is (they don’t serve or protect. That’s each of our jobs) when they protect their property. New York has descended into the 7th level of liberal hell.
Yep, that would sure be a different story in Houston…
I think there is more to this. Sounds like he shot out a tire that he really did not no for sure had done anything. Now I’m not against him defending his property, I’m just saying, something don’t sound right.
To liberals, defending this country is a terrible thing. Why should this man defending his personal property be any better. To them, anything I have that they don’t isn’t fair.
Now put the shoe on the other foot and you get a completely different response…like Hitlary feeling she should be immune from being criticized while having complete freedom to attack at will.
What doesn’t sound right, and isn’t, is criminals have more rights than property owners. The way the law in some places sees it these days, someone robs you, you might as well say “thank you very much sir, may I offer you more?”
One of many reasons I don’t count on law enforcement and the legal system to take care of any injury or damages I suffer at the hands of a criminal. So glad I don’t live in New York had enough of it when stationed at Plattsburgh AFB in the 80s. Beautiful place but some of the most restrictive gun laws I every lived under. Had to lock away my handguns, because I had to have a conceal carry to own the ones I brought with me. I didn’t touch them except for the occasional cleaning until stationed in gun friendly Louisiana a couple of years later.
Thank God Idaho is friendly to business owners and state law allows us to use deadly force to protect property, protect from bodily injury, or threat to life. Unfortunately we fall under the 9th Circus Court, which limits us to only protect threat to life or bodily injury. So much for states rights as long as San Francisco values can affect most of the Western United States.
Right. What was he thinking? Just a random guy sitting in his car in the middle of the night near a business that was being robbed minding his own business.
Does he have surveillance cameras installed? Why did he arrive before police? Why shoot someone over property? does he have insurance? unless you or loved ones are in a life threatening situation why shoot at someone and have to go through all this aggravation with lawsuits. I’m on his side, just curious about a few things, and again no teddy bears were harmed just a michelin tire, whats the big deal?
If these guy’s where robbing my biz I doubt I would be restrained enough to just shoot the tire out. I can almost guarantee thier would be some funeral’s involved. This guy has every right to protect his personal and biz property and what is the response time of the police department, in KC it’s 15 min. you could very well die waiting on them.
Michelle
There are many outraged people in Rochester. The liberals have ruined the state economically and this is how they treat a private citizen for shooting out these punks tires. Bob Lonsberry wrote an interesting piece about this a couple of days ago. The liberal rag Rochester D&C, of course did not print one work about it. This whole thing is crap and let’s turn up the heat to keep this brave person out of trouble. Thanks
I’m a life member of the NRA and a concealed carry permit holder. I interpret the Second Amendment with the same latitude that the NY Times interprets the First.
And with all that I have to admit this guy screwed up (assuming the story is accurate). Firing at a car as it leaves is not defending yourself… if the perpetrator is fleeing then whatever danger you may have been in has passed. And though I could condone using deadly force to prevent the escape of a violent felon I don’t think firing at people fleeing the scene of a misdemeanor offense is something we can allow. The risk to innocent bystanders is disproportionate to the potential benefit.
Had he caught them in the act or actually on his property then I’m all in favor of self-defense, including deadly force. But unless you’re the star of an action movie shooting at fleeing cars isn’t cool.
#8 hatelibs - Inbelievable
LOL
This case sounds eerily similar to a 70-year-old Dallas man whose business was repeatedly robbed. Only he was verbally attacked by a news reporter.
The law protecting the perpetrators - No. Nah. That can’t be true. Oh but it is. What is this world coming to?
Because when honest men refuse to protect what’s theirs it’s an invitation for dishonest men to take it.
If I was carrying fity cents and my gun, and someone tried to rob me, I’d kill him before I gave him half a buck.
No crime is exclusively about property. It’s about liberty, dignity and self-determination. And if those aren’t things worth shooting someone over I don’t know what is.
Thank You AJ #16 And James #19, That’s what I was trying to say.
Shouldn’t that be “Cowardice Town Board”?
I’m with you James Felix. I own a .380 Browning. If someone breaks into my home, I will do everything it takes to stop them as well as their attempt to escape. If all goes well, mama will have to identify them at the morgue.
If it looks promising, the perps will consider suing him for putting them through mental distress, I’m sure. They certainly would have no trouble finding a bottom feeder lawyer to help them do it.
I guess he should’ve hid and waited until they were back on the premises and then shot them dead instead huh? Sheesh, the perps should be thanking him for sparing their lives! Doesn’t this prosecution fly in the face of the United States Constitution? As usual, defend the perps and punish the victims, typical left PC modus operandi.
I’m with James. A thief deserves any bad thing that happens to them. A person who willfully does wrong should expect it.
Generally speaking, deadly force is authorized on a fleeing felon only when that felon presents an imminent danger to the public or in the case of very violent felonies (murder, rape). Deadly force is generally not authorized for those fleeing from a misdemeanor crime. (If I’m remembering first-year criminal law correctly - do not take anything in this comment as legal advice, consult a REAL attorney, not a law school student posting vague recollections on the internet.)
I hate to say it, but I think the business owner screwed up here.
I don’t necessarily think he should be punished for it.. but, yeah. You don’t shoot at people running away from the scene of a misdemeanor crime if they do not pose an imminent danger to the public, and shooting out the tire could be considered an application of deadly force. Any danger these two posed was tenuous at best.
I hope nothing comes of the charges against the business owner, but the charges aren’t as nuts as some may think.
This is a sign of things to come.
Who ever envisioned that “Criminal Justice System” would be a literal term?
Much depends on circumstances, specifically whether the intruders are involved in trespass or burglary and whether the property owner could reasonably consider himself to be in imminent danger.
The article makes is seem like the property owner in this case wasn’t in any physical danger when he encountered the first trespasser (who ran away) or the second (who “roared off”). They apparently hadn’t (yet) stolen anything, so they weren’t yet burglars (i.e., on the premises to commit a felony).
There’s a big difference legally between getting “robbed” and being “larcenized.” The former usually involves force or threat of harm; the latter is simply stealing property. Even if the trespassers intent was to commit larceny (conspiracy), it’s apparent that they meant to do so while no one was around. No threat of force or harm; hence, no felony; ergo, no robbery.
You can’t shoot at trespassers or larcenizers and expect the law to do nothing. That’s unreasonable force under the circumstances. It may seem like an unfair outcome in some cases, like this one, but in this instance at least our discomfiture is from the system working as intended, as opposed to either being broken, or unenforced, or both (e.g., immigration).
This is the hell of living in NY. It is an exquisite hell, in which I would never be able to legally shoot a perpetrator within the walls of my home, unless he was actively trying to kill me. A robber or thief, no way.
We have a haven for illegals, and the cops and prosecutors are trying to railroad this guy…
I hate this place. High taxes, Hill and Schumer, Spitzer, too and hardly a “real” Republican in the state.
Bottom feeder lawyers is right.
The dismantling of America continues.
Clockwork Orange Moment for sure
Well, if you want to know why this guy is being prosecuted…. look no farther than comments on this board…
‘You can’t shoot at trespassers or larcenizers and expect the law to do nothing. That’s unreasonable force under the circumstances. It may seem like an unfair outcome in some cases, like this one, but in this instance at least our discomfiture is from the system working as intended, as opposed to either being broken, or unenforced, or both (e.g., immigration).’
He shot at the tires.
It’s interesting to me that those that seem to be the most versed on the law support the intention of the law, but not how the law is being applied.
This is what happens when you outsource your personal security to local police and lawyers.
My personal suggestion would be to always carry two firearms… the first one will save you from the predator, and the second one will save you from our legal system.
These days, I’m as afraid of the cops as I am of criminals.
Relax. It’s a technicality. It’ll be thrown out on 1/16. Bet the farm on that.
WHAAAAA?
I am on the side of this guy but, he violated the law when he shot out their tires. He violated many laws in fact. Like James Felix, I too am a CCP guy and the last thing I would have done is shoot at them. You learn real quick about the law and which side of that law you HAVE to be on to carry. There are many ways a gun owner can find himself in jail fast over the discharge of a fire arm/weapon. I would recommend everyone take a CCP class even if you never plan to carry. You will learn a lot about self defense as well.
Some are saying that they hadn’t taken anything “yet” … perhaps … but it said he was wakened by “an alarm” … hard to believe the alarm went off without a break-in occurring … and does the owner live adjacent to the business property … would not be unusual in many more rural parts of the country … which would explain his getting there before any law enforcement types … just a few of the unanswered items from what little we know at this point …
I have experienced both having my own home broken into and property taken and being robbedd at gunpoint in my life … and unless you have been in those situations you can’t fully comprehend what it is like … and it seems this man had been through it on a number of occassions … can’t say I blame him for finally deciding he had to do something himself as no one else was apparently going to do anything to stop the thefts …
It seems to me that even if a perp is fleeing it is reasonable to be afraid that they may still be a danger to others and justify shooting them as they flee. It is not a question of “is property worthy killing someone over” The perp decided my property was worth dying over when he tried to take what is mine.
I’m as gung-ho for gun rights as anyone (you want to keep a full-auto AK-47 in your trunk? Fine by me). But this smells like a bad shooting.
If the suspect wasn’t on his property and wasn’t in the process of committing a forceful felony, he didn’t have the right to shoot.
You are not allowed to shoot someone in the back when they are fleeing and posing no threat to you or anyone else. Had he encountered the alleged tresspasser (the one in the car) on his property, he would have been within his rights to shoot him dead. But once he leaves his property, there is a higher standard.
Hopefully he’ll get leniency, but this should probably serve as a warning to people who think that having a gun gives them the right to shoot at anyone they suspect of fleeing a crime scene.
Shooting out the tire, gives the criminals something to think about should the contemplate coming back. He sent the message that he is not an easy target. If this happened to this man repeatedly over the years what do you expect? People will only lay down and take someone walking all over them but for so long.
Particularly to the tires.
Laws vary from state to state and municipality to municipality. Up to us to change the laws where we live to laws we can live with.
In Hawaii a farmer shot and killed someone who had been stealing his crops. He shot him on the road off the property so was charged. I’m not current on the case, but there was much sympathy for him, since theft of agriculture is huge (multimillion dollar “business”) in Hawaii, and basically this man was being robbed of his entire year’s income. How would you defend yourself and family if someone tried to steal this year’s food and shelter? Calling the police is useless here (sorry to say) when it involves crops. (They will tell you that you can’t prove they are yours since they are in the perp’s truck.) I think I prefer Texas’ laws…
You just can’t shoot at a car, even to shoot out the tires. Now, if they weren’t thieves, but were pulling an unwilling person into the car, different story.
But as it stands, the guy has at least violated a noise ordinance and possibly littering if he left the spent shell on the ground.
This guy’s buisness has been robbed continuously over the past few years to the tune of over $250.000.00 in equipment and damages. Seems the cops could care less if this buisness is robbed on a regular basis. The theives know it’s easy pickings because they are never caugtht.
This guy had an alarm that summoned him from home and when he got there, one of the guys was still inside. The other on tried to screw out of there in the get away car and he shot the tire out. If it were me, I’d have aimed hire, so I guess the little pukes are luck the owner has more of a heart for these thugs than I do!
Even our liberal local media can’t be bothered to print the WHOLE story.
DA info:
http://www.co.ontario.ny.us/da/DA_Staff_2007.htm
this is what happens when lawlessness abounds. we are in anarchy. lawlessness creates vigiliantism. if the authorities were taking care of the criminals instead of persecuting the victims we wouldn’t have this frustration that moves us towards vigilante action.
That statement assumes that the perp is not going to come back. In this case, his business had been a frequent target by burglars. How do we know these same perps weren’t involved in previous incidents and would not come back again, perhaps during the day when lives might be at stake?
They break in and damage his property and they are charged with misdemeanors. He damages their property while they are trespassing on his land and he is charged with a felony. I say give the benefit of doubt to the property owner, not the thieves.
It’s interesting to read that for the most part, the defense of this guy’s actions can be reduced to a defense of the emotional response of having property taken, or potentially taken.
His firing was an understandable emotional response to the theives actions.
I can understand the sentiment. If someone stole(emphasis on the past tense) from me, I’d want to punch the hell out of them. But we all know that if we do punch him, we can be charged with assault. So simply because it seems like an appropriate emotional responses, it’s a weak defense for a legal charge. Especially when guns are involved.
Even more so, it’s relatively alarming that some of you would resort to shooting another person just because you’re mad. That’s a very liberal interpretation of the 2nd.
You can’t shoot people for crimes that haven’t committed yet. We don’t know that they won’t come back, but you can’t shoot a person because of the possibility that they might.
This case is so dependent on state and local law that most of us can only speculate and discuss in terms of general morality. I do not know if it is the case in all of New York State but I have heard numerous legal talking heads on the news over the years from New York who have talked about the law there being “meet force with equal force” for self-defense, aka the “you can’t shoot an unarmed man” law. If that is the case, he is indeed in deep doo-doo. Also, I am pretty sure that New York jurisprudence contains an obligation to retreat. Again, not in this man’s favor.
Cases like this are often discussed on firearm forums which I frequent and are very state sensitive. For example, I understand that in Texas and Washington you can use lethal force to protect property. Some states are very clear that lethal force may only be used prevent grave bodily injury or death and others are pretty ambiguous and depend a lot on whether the crime is in your home, place of business, automobile or in a public place. In states with “Castle Doctrine” laws you have much more latitude to protect yourself than you have in other states and typically, as part of those laws, the bad guy is barred from bringing civil suit against you.
In general it does bother me when people argue as a blanket position that someone shouldn’t be shot and killed over property crimes. Instead of recreating the wheel, I’ll post something from another forum that makes the argument pretty well:
There is nothing in the law that says if you are frequented by burglars and one is fleeing, you can shoot at them.
Your first course of action is to remove yourself from the danger. If you choose not to, you are already on shaky ground. You cannot shoot to protect your property – just your life or that of another person (and, in the latter, you had better make sure that is the case).
When you pull a trigger, you had better be ready to pay the price.
I am still on this guy’s side. I am sure he was frustrated but that does not give him the right to violate the laws.
P.S. I lieu of a CCP course, stop by any pawn shop and ask the owner any question on what the laws are. Most all of the have a CCP and know the laws backwards and forwards.
I live a couple of streets over from Joe Horn.He shot the 2(illegal,once deported drug dealers) in the back.It seems they had been robbing Vietnamese business owners homes after doing a little stalking.The Chronicle wont print it but they were in a public utility truck,either working for the electric company or it was stolen.The new Texas Castle doctrine law went into effect 1 Sep and everyone is waiting for the outcome of the grand jury.We will see if the law has teeth.If you had to shoot under the old law you had to drag them in your home for it to be justified.
Those liberal hacks interpretation of justice is simply stunning. A man defends his property from repeated assaults. Assaults that have continued, in no small measure, because the justice system has failed to excise society of criminals, and it’s the property owner who faces charges! That is just stupid.
With liberals, what’s wrong is right and what’s right is wrong.
Whats the beef? They only wanted his property that liberals claim is worthless and easily replacable.
How dare he risk taking the life of a scumbag or two in order to prevent spending thousand of his hard earned dollars to replace worthless property.
How dare he try to prevent having to spend thousand of Dollars of his NY State owned money.
Wouldn’t the NY State IRS be more than happy to let him spend thousand of their hard earned (that he earned) money that they could have used to support illegals, the uneducated, and lazy? What he did is simply upsetting the NY State Welfare System. They just preferred to get their welfare payment in the form of his property.
What does being a Vietnam Veteran have to do with it? It just proves that he was too stupid to be successful.
Yup, the Liberal way of life is the perfect way to live. How dare we object!
I think one would be hard pressed to argue against the principle you’ve posted, however, that doesn’t neccessarily lead to belief that it is morally just to protect one’s property with lethal force.
If we hold Life to be the highest of order, followed(or not) by liberty but certainly followed by property(since property is derived from life and liberty), we should also protect them in that order. Looking at it from a moral point of view and not a personal point of view, property should be extinguished before life. I feel your argument supports the belief that lethal force should not be used to protect one’s property, since to use it would be infringing on another’s right to life, which is greater than another’s right to property.
A better illustration of this principle would be one of the starving theif and the stolen bread. One would be hard pressed to say that stealing a loaf of bread while starving is morally reprehensible, even though that bread is very much someone else’s property.
Or rather, I think few would agree that using lethal force against someone stealing a loaf of bread as an action that is morally correct.
Soap, are you quoting NY law or speaking generally? If NY law, I take your word for it that is the case. If you are speaking generally then you are incorrect in that the laws vary greatly from state to state as far as lethal force use (my post #50 speaks to that issue).
The point is that Life, Liberty and Property are inextricably linked. Each is dependent and flows from and with the other. Yes, life is more important as liberty or property, being that as long as I have my life I may regain liberty and reacquire property. But that is MY life, not the life of someone seeking to deprive me of my life, liberty or property.
Where the line is as to moral lethal force to protect property is not a heavy black line - it is a fuzzy gray line that differs from person to person, situation to situation. There are poor people in the world from whom stealing a crust of bread because you are starving causes them and their family to starve instead. They would be justified in using lethal force to prevent you stealing that bread.
The fact is that no person stealing knows what damage they are doing to the person they steal from. They have no way of knowing if that theft will bankrupt someone, cause them to starve or be evicted from their home. And the thief doesn’t care. The thief steals because the thief believes that their want, and maybe even need, is superior to your right to be secure in life, liberty and property. That is not the case.
Ok! The property owner hears his alarm go off in the middle of the night. He looks all over for his New York state law books as well as for his Federal statutes regarding gun laws and deadly force when confronted with this threat but can’t find them.
Rats! I’ll just have to try to remember what my years of study has taught me but they keep changing these pesky laws on me.
Oooooh! There’s a guy running away. Well I can’t very well shoot him in the back! Aha! There’s another guy burning rubber to get away. I’ll just shoot his tires out then wait til the cops get here so I can hand him over like I did all those other thieves I caught for the cops.
I’m sure the guy thought he was doing the right thing but by charging him he is going to have a record.
Arrogant prosecuter strikes again. Another method to restrict gun owner’s rights and make the bad guys feel more secure in their chosen profession.
“Yes, life is more important as liberty or property,”
Oops, “Yes, life is more important than liberty or property,”
I’ll generally apologize for the other grammatically errors rather than try to correct them
I agree completely. The example that you offered is exactly the example I was going to offer in my last post, but felt that it was going too far off my main point.
I do contest that while the theif may not know the affect that his theivery may have, the person who is defending their property does. So they would be able to make an educated guess about property being stolen will lead to the loss of liberty or life.
That’s true, but when we start thinking about things in that way, we cease to look at a situation from the moral point of view and begin to look at it from a personal point to view, that is, we look at ways that the situation can benefit us the most. Yes, it’s more benefitial to a person to be able to defend their property with whatever force they want, but I don’t agree that it’s the moral course of action.
Local update from Rochester. From Rochester radio personnality Bob Lonsberry program.
http://www.lonsberry.com/writings.cfm?story=2287&go=4
wow.
who cares if the world loses a few more thieves?
jesus. the more thieves that know they’ll get shot, the fewer thieves there’ll be.
at the very least, we’ll get rid of the crap of society.
I agree with DesertLover #39 - My apartment was broken into once and it was the scariest thing I’ve ever experienced. The first thing I did when I realized some had been (and might still be) in my apartment was grab the first thing I could think of as a weapon just in case.
So what if the jerks were driving away; do you really think he had had a chance yet to see if they got anything? Maybe they were the same ones who had already stolen from him multiple times before. It wouldn’t be a first!
You can own a gun in this country.
You just can’t use it.
I’ll say it was a bad shooting, but just because he only hit the tire.
After reading that column and the additional information, I would most certainly say that the authorities have this all backwards. Yet another reason to never again set foot in New York.
Incredible that he might face more punishment than the thieves.
Even more incredible is that he would even be taken before a judge!
UNFREAKINGBELIEVALE!
Since I’ve lived in New York all my life, except for two years in the Army, I can say with a high degree of confidence that the charges against the property owner acting in self-defense are the professional courtesy shown by one gang of crooks for another.
The thieves will bargain this down to improper parking.
The shooter will get jail time.
KDFW/Dallas TV Anchor: “Our reporter, Roberta Aguilar, is on the way with a camera crew and will be filing a report as soon as she arrives. Stay tuned for more…”
Insane indeed. What kind of f’ed-up-in-the-head prosecutor charges the victim more harshly than the criminals?
I think you all are assuming some facts that are not in evidence. Namely, where does it say he shot AT the man in the car. As I read it, he shot at the tire, not the person in the car. Therefore, there is not intent to injure or kill and no felony.
This may have been a misdemeanor discharge of a weapon in a prohibited area but I don’t see any felonies except for the attempted breaking and entering of business.
No comprendo!!!
When seconds count, how many minutes are you willing to wait for the Police?
Thieves require elimination.
After reading the link provided by a12iggymom #62, it sounds like the car was only a few feet from John O’Connor when he pulled the trigger. Obviously, at that range, two things are true:
1: As the link noted, O’Connor easily could have spattered the driver’s brains all over the vehicle, but he didn’t –
2: He chose to shoot a tire instead, which, with him standing only a few feet from the car, means that he was pointing the shotgun virtually at the ground, and nowhere near the occupants.
There was no deadly force used, if the details in the link are reported correctly. Just because a weapon was used does not make it deadly force. Destruction of private property (destroying the tire)? Yeah…maybe. Ring him up for that one…I am sure that the $85 cost of that tire is well below the threshhold for a felony.
Let’s have an exercise — (do it mentally if you are feeling lazy). Go get your shotgun (Libs, use your broomstick) and stand outside in your driveway beside your car. Now point it towards the drivers seat. Now, swing it around and down to aim it at a tire. See how far away from the driver you are pointing?
Absolutely no intent to kill, let alone harm involved here. If he wanted to harm these punks, they would be in the morgue.