TBO.com - Tampa Bay Online
St. Pete Police: Man Shoots Self In Leg Defending SUV
ADVERTISEMENT
Published: April 9, 2008
Updated: 04/09/2008 12:56 pm
A man shot himself in the leg about 6 a.m. today as he wrestled with someone trying to break into his SUV in St. Petersburg, said George Kajtsa of the St. Petersburg Police Department.
Marlos Conrad
Police found Richard X. Summers,39, wounded in the upper leg and holding down 18-year-old Marlos M. Conrad.
Kajtsa said Conrad, of 3801 W. Wallace Ave., Tampa, followed Summers' fiancé into their housing complex at 10265 Gandy Boulevard while she was driving a GMC Yukon Denali. She exited the SUV, someone tripped the alarm and she yelled for Summers.
Police say Summers, armed with a handgun, confronted Conrad inside the SUV. They struggled and the gun went off.
Conrad is being held at Pinellas County Jail on charges of strong-arm robbery and auto burglary.
Richard X. Summers
Stay with TBO.com for developments.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)
* Keep it clean
* Respect others
* Don't hate
* Don't use language you wouldn't use with your mom
* Use "Report Inappropriate Comments" link when necessary
* See Member Agreement for details
TBO.com - Tampa Bay Online Member Agreement | Privacy Statement | Work With Us
Reader Comments
Posted by ( watttt ) on April 9, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
He should have smoked the perp too, before the cops got there. Good job though.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Bill_H ) on April 9, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Doh! I hate it when that happens!
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( elizabeth1977 ) on April 9, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Must have been one nice car!
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( thatguyfl82 ) on April 9, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
I don't know what was going through his mind, as it was probably a pretty stressful situation, but if I had my 9mm on me, loaded, and confronted a guy trying to break into my car, and he tried coming after me.. the headline would read "Burglar shot dead after attempted carjacking" because I would've unloaded the clip the second the guy made a threatening move at me :-)
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Jen1897 ) on April 9, 2008 at 10:07 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
watttt and thatguyfl82
My thoughts exactly! I wish more people would start arming themselves and fighting back.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( dahockeygrl ) on April 9, 2008 at 10:09 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
I agree with thatguyfl82 - I wouldn't have given the thug the opportunity to "wrestle" for the gun. I've got five tries (revolver) to aim and hit the target. No sympathy for people who try to take what I've worked so hard for (key word work) . . . worthless scum.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( mailman ) on April 9, 2008 at 10:12 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
You also shouldn't let someone get close enough to grab your gun, HELLO!
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( icebrkr ) on April 9, 2008 at 10:16 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Unfortunately, if the owner of the vehicle would have shot the thief, he would have have been sent to jail. Regardless of what the constitutional says, you have no rights to defend your property. The victim is yet again, the victim. You have to feel that your life is in danger and threatened, yadda yadda, meanwhile, time is going so fast, you don't have time to debate politics in your head. If good people were able to shoot at will without having to think about the aftermath, I think would-be theives would think twice before trying to nab something.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( gmoney ) on April 9, 2008 at 10:22 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
I wonder how many know-it-all wanna-be lawyers will pop-up & want to share their opinions on every facet of the law, right to carry, & protect personal property ect.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Bonsai ) on April 9, 2008 at 10:26 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Yeah watttt and thatguyfl82 - and do you know what would have happened - the guy would have been arrested for murder and the perps family would have sued him for some kind of wrongful death. It's not worth the hassle.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Jen1897 ) on April 9, 2008 at 10:27 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
icebrkr
You are correct. However one could easily turn the situation around. All you would need to do is say that you were going to your car and the person breaking into it saw you and came after you. You have every right to shoot then.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( RSStewart ) on April 9, 2008 at 10:28 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Shocked & surprised here! This is the first time I agree with every single opinion given in here. We have suffered through 2 car burglaries (they break the door lock). If I was lucky enough to catch someone trying to break into our car again, no warning & no talking at all. They're simply going to be shot dead where they stand.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Ceetee ) on April 9, 2008 at 10:34 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
How sad of a world we live in when we have to result to shooting someone, just to protect what belongs to us.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( RSStewart ) on April 9, 2008 at 10:36 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Icebrkr, I understand your point. I'll revise my first comment. OF COURSE I thought my life was in danger. That screwdriver in his hand looked like a knife! (I really do think that's what they use on my door lock). I had no choice but to shoot when he refused to drop it & lunged at me. After all, I'm a law abiding citizen, so I wouldn't shoot someone just because they were trying to steal my car. Hell, I could just buy another one. Yeah right, maybe when pigs fly..etc.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( RobKay ) on April 9, 2008 at 10:37 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
icebrkr, that doesn't sound right. I think you meant protect not defend your property but what do you mean, "you have no right to do it?" By law (estopple) if you don't do anything you are in effect giving the thief your permission. I don't understand what you're saying.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( 3bullies ) on April 9, 2008 at 10:42 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Here's how it wouls have played out. Police:what happened?
Me: I was coming to my car and this man tried to kill me with whatever tool he was using to break into my car with because I startled him. I just happened to have my gun with me, as I never leave home without it, and I shot him 17 times.
Police: Why did you you feel the need to shoot him that many times?
Me: I told him not to move and he just kept twitching, so I shot him again each time moved. Finally he stopped twitching and I stopped shooting.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( tparich ) on April 9, 2008 at 10:43 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
icebrkr: "If good people were able to shoot at will without having to think about the aftermath..."
OMG!
Even the police need to think of the "aftermath" before firing their weapon.
Can you imagine every gun toting drunk shooting someone without thinking... oh wait, they already do.
This man did the right thing. Hold the perp for the police.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Claylisa ) on April 9, 2008 at 10:46 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
I never cared for Jeb Bush, but this is one moment where I must say that I'm glad he did SOMETHING right.
"In 2005 Gov. Jeb Bush signed into law an expansion on the Castle Doctrine, also known as the "Shoot First" statute. This law states that a person is able to "meet force with force", simply stating that if a criminal breaks into your home, occupied vehicle or place of business you may assume he is there to do bodily harm and use any force against him. Before this law came into effect there was the "duty to retreat" law which states that if a criminal breaks into your home you have the duty to try and retreat before using any kind of force. The shoot first law replaces this duty to retreat and also added the right to protect your occupied vehicle and place of business. Also note that this law protects from criminal prosecution and civil litigation for those who defend themselves against criminal attacks."
This looks like textbook self defense. His NOT shooting the crook is actually good. Since the car WASN'T occupied at the time it appears.
Good job to him for foiling that punk. I'm sure he worked had for his dam car and don't deserve any low-life taking advantage. Get your own car!!
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( DoodleBugg ) on April 9, 2008 at 10:48 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
The problem is obvious.
the man who got shot did it all wrong.
you don't grab gun and "CONFRONT"
you grab gun and "PULL THE TRIGGER"
ok
first you let the carjacker know that he's made a REALLY bad decision , THEN you pull the trigger...and pull it once more so you don't have to chase him too far.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( ROBMAC ) on April 9, 2008 at 10:57 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
why'd you shoot him 15 times?i didn't have any more ammo
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Jen1897 ) on April 9, 2008 at 10:57 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
3bullies
HAHHAHA!! And Robkay..icebrkr is right. He/she is not saying that they agree but they are correct. You DO NOT by law have the right to shoot someone to protect your property. At least that's what the officer told me when I got my CWP. But like I said before, you could get around that law.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( boston85 ) on April 9, 2008 at 10:58 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
I hear you, thatguy
he should be dead
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( jj123 ) on April 9, 2008 at 11:08 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Why is the emphasis of this story on the man injuring himself? Oh ya, its hte media's job to scare people and say see, you're going to hurt yourself! The actual news part of this story is that an armed citizen successfully stopped a crime by displaying their firearm, and not even shooting the criminal, but by holding them there for police. I'm sure we'll never hear about this one on the tv news from the proper angle.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( acuratl96 ) on April 9, 2008 at 11:17 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
DoodleBugg, I agree, shoot first then ask questions.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( frankly ) on April 9, 2008 at 11:22 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
I know there are no attorneys posting free advise on how to lawfully kill people.....therefore it must be the jail house lawyers giving advise. My car is not worth dying for, life in prison or getting sued by the victim and/or his family. Those who tell you how to or what to do will not do it themselves. Take their advise so they can post tomorrow on "Home owner shoots water meter reader who accidently set off a car alarm." and their comment...."What was this dummy thinking?"
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Landsturm ) on April 9, 2008 at 11:28 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
The property owner showed great restraint and maybe hesitated or got too close, the fact that he didn't shoot the guy right off and then held the guy after fighting over the gun and getting shot proves it. Beware all you would be Wyatt Earps with almost no combat handgun training - It takes an attacker a mere split second to close a 10 Ft gap and be on you, the property owner was lucky this time and congrates to him...
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( savagenation ) on April 9, 2008 at 11:54 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Lol. I'm going to listen to Mailman's tips in his post. Postal employees definitely know how to cause mass carnage.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( DoodleBugg ) on April 9, 2008 at 1:11 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
The Florida "Castle Doctrine" law basically does three things:
One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.
Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others. [This is an American right repeatedly recognized in Supreme Court gun cases.]
Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.
It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.
In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors who are prone to coddling criminals to instead focus on protecting victims.
SO -- is this the impression you got from the news? Why not? Aren’t media people impartial purveyors of objective facts, with no bias or spin, faithfully and accurately reporting the news? Everyone who believes that’s an accurate description of the news media please raise your hand. See? No hands go up. Despite their protests otherwise, the news media has, in general, and especially with respect to gun issues, become an outrageous purveyor of agenda-driven nonsense on the dark side of the force.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( thatguyfl82 ) on April 9, 2008 at 1:42 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I would take my chances with a good lawyer and the Judicial system then let this guy wrestle me away from my gun.
The Unwritten Rule of owning a gun for protection...
Shoot to Kill. That is coming from a Hillsborough County Sheriff
If you shoot him dead and don't mess with the Crime scene, let the cops do their jobs, let them place you under arrest, give them interviews..
I'm not stupid. I realize pulling a trigger puts me in jail, but hmmm would Jail for a few hours at the most while the Cops do their jobs is alot better than a hospital or a cemetery if this guy comes at me with a screwdriver or knife.
People can second guess all they want, but I'm pulling the trigger no if, ands, or buts.
after all I didn't get a concealed weapons licenses to shoot at empty beer bottles on a fence railing. I got it for PROTECTION
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( shields1955 ) on April 9, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
The piece of crap should definitely have a toe tag on!! More people need to do the same thing, stand up for yourselves and stop being prey for these animals!!
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( icebrkr ) on April 9, 2008 at 2:46 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I'm just saying that time after time you read about someone trying to defend/protect their property and they end up being sued by the thief's family for some silly reason. It really sucks that you have to think about all the crap you'll go through just because someone comes along and messes with something you worked long and hard for.
Look at what poor Joe Horn (Google: 911 Call of Texas Man, Shoots Two Robbers) had to go through. Though, he called 911 and asked for permission to shoot the guys. Either way, he's a victim of BS Politics now. I understand what you guys are saying. I'm just quite cynical and honestly 'the system' really only punishes the honest people.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( DennyPCrane ) on April 9, 2008 at 2:59 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Claylisa, I was just sitting back and waiting to see when someone would bring up the Castle Doctrine and you finally did. Good job. The people who are posting that citizens have no right to use deadly force either have not heard of the Castle Doctrine or are just posting out of ignorance.
The law was passed to protect people in their homes, vehicles and vessels and is very straightforward in its wording. There is no duty whatsoever to retreat in this kind of situation. If more people knew about it and had concealed weapons permits (I am not saying that we need a state full of John Waynes here) then the criminals might start thinking twice about victimizing innocent people.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( MyNameIsJob ) on April 9, 2008 at 3:29 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Give em' an inch and they'll take a mile....How the Castle Doctrine was exploited.
In other news......Senate OKs Guns In Cars At Work
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( jandpbell ) on April 9, 2008 at 3:37 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
ummm... idk if im the only one to notice this but doesnt the victims pic also look like a mug shot... and yes im aware this has nothing to do with the situiation at hand and good for him for apprehending this scum but is everyone on the face of the earth a freaking criminal? i know i myself am but i wasnt aware everyone else was....jk
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( GF ) on April 9, 2008 at 3:46 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
DoodleBugg, Excellent post.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( rjp ) on April 9, 2008 at 4:27 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Everyone....excellent posts....Something's gotta give.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Jen1897 ) on April 9, 2008 at 6:30 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
jandpbell
lol..I think it's a passport pic.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( Landsturm ) on April 9, 2008 at 7:18 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
This is a late post but I'll do it anyway : Both PERP and VIC are Black...It is clear to me that VIC did everything he could and did not take a life, VIC is a Hero in my book after being shot and still didn't take another brothers life...Me Hell I would'a shot the PERP in the A$$ Cheek after that...VIC gives me hope that we are not "ALL" Becoming Animals...You give me hope...We all are not bad...
Report Inappropriate Comments