The recent fatal shooting of a 15-year-old juvenile delinquent allegedly attempting to steal a car in Charlotte, North Carolina, serves as an important reminder to gunowners that self-defense law has very definable limits with extremely serious consequences when violated. The right to use deadly force in most jurisdictions across the country is typically reserved for protecting life, not property.
The Incident
Keshawn Boyd, a 27-year-old DoorDash driver, is charged with first-degree murder after admitting to shooting Matthias Crockett, a teenager who Boyd claimed was attempting to steal his car on 8th Street in Uptown Charlotte. Boyd has cited self-defense, but legal experts emphasize that protecting property, even from theft, even to stop someone from driving off in your car, generally does not justify the use of deadly force under North Carolina or most any state’s law.
Understanding the Law
Larry Hyatt, a gun store and range owner who teaches gun safety and concealed-carry classes, was quoted in an ABC 7 Chicago news report explaining the legal criteria for self-defense.
“The main criteria under state law is a fear of death or serious bodily harm to yourself or another when using force that is intended or likely to cause death,” Hyatt said. For the claim of self-defense to apply in cases involving property, the individual must be inside the vehicle, home or workplace at the time of the threat. Hyatt emphasized that self-defense laws are intended to protect lives, not possessions.
“Self-protection is to protect ourselves, protect our life. It’s not to protect our car or our computer. Those are objects,” he said.
Hyatt also cautioned about the lifelong mental toll on individuals who take a life, even when justified.
“I have talked to people who have had to use their firearm for self-protection and actually took someone’s life. They never get over it. It is a lifelong burden that they are going to carry,” he added.
A Lesson for Gun Owners
The case serves as a stark reminder for gun owners across the country. In nearly every U.S. jurisdiction, deadly force is permissible only when a person reasonably fears for their life or serious bodily harm—or that of another individual. Protecting property alone does not meet this threshold.
Non-lethal options, such as pepper spray or mace, are legally permissible tools for property protection. Hyatt advised gun owners to fully understand their state’s laws and to think carefully before escalating a situation.
The incident has sent ripples through the gig economy, particularly among food delivery workers. Andreana Jones, a part-time delivery driver, expressed her unease.
“You have to protect yourself because it could have been the other way,” she was quoted as saying in the ABC 7 report. Still, the legal limitations weigh heavily on those in similar roles and are a critical lesson for all gunowners.
The case serves as a warning to would-be crooks, as well. They shouldn’t be stealing people’s property as things can go wrong, very wrong, as they did for Crockett. The kid maybe didn’t deserve to die for stealing a car, but his actions certainly precipitated what played out. It’s hard to feel sorry for a person who was likely knowingly breaking the law and attempting to steal another man’s livelihood who is out trying to make an honest living. There are no winners in such cases.
Read the full article here
