Car break-in suspect in Church Hill was shot at six times
The man charged with killing a car break-in suspect in Church Hill fired two shots, then chased him and fired four more times, according to courtroom testimony in Richmond yesterday.
After hearing the testimony, a Richmond General District Court substitute judge certified to a grand jury charges of second-degree murder and use of a firearm in a felony against Eric G. Driver, 25. Judge Janipher W. Robinson said the grand jury will hear the case July 6.
Driver, of the 500 block of North 22nd Street, is charged with the April 22 shooting death of Jamall Holman, 24, of the 1700 block of Forest Glen Road in Henrico County.
The case has sparked an extensive public debate about how far people should be allowed to go to defend themselves and their property.
At yesterday's hearing, the prosecutor handling the case said it was a clear case of Driver overstepping his legal boundaries.
"Virginia law is clear: You cannot use deadly force to defend property," Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Thomas L. Johnson Jr. said.
Johnson said that after Driver's girlfriend was startled by a masked Holman breaking into her car near North 22nd and East Leigh streets, Driver should have called police instead of confronting Holman.
Instead, Johnson said, Driver not only confronted Holman and shot at him twice, he also chased Holman and fired four more times. Autopsy results indicate Holman was struck three times, Johnson said.
Defense attorney John W. Luxton said Driver merely reacted instinctively after his girlfriend was frightened and thought she was in danger.
Johnson called three witnesses, including a Church Hill resident who was walking his two dogs in a nearby alley that afternoon when he heard two gunshots. Daniel Manza said that when he turned in the direction of the shots, he saw one person chasing someone and then firing four shots from a distance of 5 to 10 feet.
Manza stayed in the alley, called 911 and waited for police.
James Peck, the first Richmond police officer on the scene, said he encountered Driver coming up Leigh Street and pulled over to speak with him.
Peck said Driver told him: "The dude just tried to break into my girlfriend's car, and I've got a gun."
Driver initially made no mention of Holman possibly having a gun, but he later claimed Holman was armed, Peck said.
David E. Burt, the lead investigator in the case, said numerous detectives and officers searched the area several times and called in a gun-sniffing dog, which also made two sweeps of the area the day of the shooting. Two days later, city public-utilities crews drained and checked the storm sewers in the neighborhood.
"No firearm was found at that time, either," Burt testified.
Luxton, who called no witnesses, said Driver felt like he was fighting for his life. Luxton suggested a lesser charge of manslaughter might be more appropriate.
But Johnson said Driver had established the intent needed to prove second-degree murder by chasing Holman after firing two shots and then firing four more times.
"The initial confrontation, that should have been the end of it," Johnson said.
Contact Joe Macenka at (804) 649-6804 or
.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
We live in a society comprised of “reasonable men”, and our peers make up juries of “reasonable men” to which we are entitled if accused of a crime. Is it reasonable, in light of the facts in this case (was the shooter reasonably in fear for his life or safety?) for him to have fired six times at an individual who was running away from him?
Why shoot six times- because he was afraid the thief might return with a gun of his own? The shooter’s attorney is expected to raise a vigorous defense, at least one prong of which ought to be creating a reasonable doubt in the mind of the jury that the criteria for conviction of the crime charged by the Commonwealth’s Attorney has not been satisfied, by claiming just such a motivation on the part of the defendant. If such a motivation is deemed reasonable in the mind of the jury, then it doesn’t matter what the prosecution contends, the jury will rule the defendant innocent of the crime, and that ends the matter.
With the benefit of hindsight and from the vantage point of the monday-morning quarterback, it might not seem reasonable to have fired six times. But other facts might overcome that conclusion- the shooter called out to witnesses for help (he was not hiding anything), cooperated with police (an indicator of honesty in the instant matter), and professed a reasonably well-founded fear that the thief was armed (that individual having been brazen enough, after all, to break into a car in plain view of potential witnesses).
Bottom line, it is for the jury (or judge) to try to divine the true motivation underlying and driving the behavior of the shooter, and to rule as to guilt or innocence of the charge against him, upon review of all the evidence and arguments made by prosecution and defense in the case, in an impartial (and dispassionate) manner…
Note that it is very difficult to make thoughtful decisions in a split-second, especially when the adrenaline is flowing. The law makes no provisions for that in the determination of the elements of a crime. It is up to juries and judges to weigh the evidence and to decide whether particular actions exceed the bounds of reasonable response to situations, based on the totality of evidence presented during the adjudication process. The thief “assumed the risk” by breaking into a vehicle. He knew there was a chance he might sustain injury, or worse, during such exploits.
Though Richmond is hardly Dodge City during the days of the wild West, citizens must be entitled to a reasonable defense of person and property. This is not to give them license to “shoot first and ask questions later”, but our police cannot be everywhere, all the time. Anything less inevitably leads to a breakdown of social order as those who have no respect for others, much less the law, will simply take out their frustrations on the innocent with no regard for possible consequence.
The Commonwealth’s Attorney considers such cases thoughtfully, before pressing for an indictment. Many things go into that calculus. I have seen or heard nothing about the instant case to suggest that the system is not working as it should.
jim mclane
politicians and high priced lawyers always want you to run away and call the police. they live in gated communities insulated from the dangers of everyday life. The rest of us live in the real world. Police are worthless. Criminal got what he deserved Where do I contribute to the driver defense fund?
Yeah Mark your right, we totally mean that you should get to shoot anyone you want. I wish you didn’t sound like a typical gun control guy, but you do making them all look like idiots.
Defending your property should not be about like force. Like force has always been a rediculous law. Why should I put myself in to like danger as the criminal (Who doesn’t care about the laws at all so will likley ignore like force rules) when defending myself or property.
Peronsonally I think this guy took it a little far chasing him up the street shooting at him. But how many times can your property be destroyed or stolen why you watch, waiting for police that come hours later and don’t ever do anything but file a report.
Everyone here should know, if you try and break into my car I will shoot you. Now I might have to deal with the law, but you will be dead.
I see and agree with your point of thinking clearly and conscise and split second decisions, and agreed If somone was in “my House” where my life is in danger there was no other method of easy exit or defense, I would shoot first and ask questions later. However toward your points of “adrenaline takes over” and “Mr. Driver may have done society a favor by eliminating a thief who if jailed would have lived off our tax dollars” I have to ask was it adrenaline or anger? Also, in this act he created another felon (himself) who if jailed will be living off of our tax dollars for a lot longer on a murder 2 conviction than one who went behind bars for a breaking and entering or petty larceny charge. To anyone who owns a gun, I say take a Conceal and Carry class even if you don’t want to carry, learn the laws, and know what you are up against when you have to fire in self defense…
The criminal was hurt doing a criminal act. I think everything that happens during this is actually the criminal’s fault. The guy should not have nothing done to him. How about taking up for the victim for once.
No one can speak for how they would really react under such circumstances. If you’re thinking clear and concise about something its not the same reaction as when you have to make split second decision and the adrenaline takes over. 2-6 shots some say too much some say not enough, I think he shot and he kept shooting because he actually did feel threatened. How would you feel if a masked person was breaking in your vehicle or your house? I’d shoot first and ask questions later. The fact the vehicle had already been broken into earlier only made the situation more problematic. Yes, he should have stopped shooting and not chased the suspect but would that have saved anyone else from the suspect’s future break-ins or possible armed robberies, no and so I think that Mr. Driver may have done society a favor by eliminating a thief who if jailed would have lived off our tax dollars.
When we stop giving criminals more rights than its law abiding citizens we’ll be a truely free society until then I say arm yourselves because the wild wild west is making a come back in this harsh economy.
Was trying to show-off for his girlfriend—show her what a take-no-mess tough guy he is. This is obvious. The CAs office knows it too.
Anytime you are CHASING the crook, from behind, and are shooting the gun, then YOU are then the predator who’s a danger. At least at that very moment. Face-to-face self defense? That’s a whole other thing.
First off, I’m a gun owner, card carrying NRA member, and firm believer in the 2nd ammendment. That being said I have to say Mr. Driver went to far. he effectivly ended the threat to himself and his girlfriend after the first two shots were fired and Mr Holman Ran. That is when you let the police take over, give them a description, direction and help in anyway possible. Chasing someone and firing four more shots is taking “Self Defense” too far.
I completely agree. We should be out there shooting people. We don’t need courts and a police department. Just shoot anyone you feel is doing you wrong. Just like on those old westerns on tv. You never saw much law-breaking on Gunsmoke.
Call Richmond Police???? And…
Wait…and wait…and then get some goof ball who fails to file a police report or is too busy beating up citizens while off duty in the shockoe bottom bars?
What a joke, it is time we act like Texas. If you want to break in and attempt to steal property, better be prepared to pay with your life is how I would rewrite “Virginia law.“
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement