Taking law into one’s hands will backfire
It appears 18-year-old John R. Sokol IV took the law into his own hands when he shot at two teens he suspected were planning to steal his all-terrain vehicle. Did he go too far? State police claim he did and charged him with aggravated assault, a felony that if he’s found guilty could cost the young man many years of his life in a prison cell.
Unless a Fayette County jury eventually convened to hear the case against Sokol differs drastically from public sentiment, the district attorney will have a difficult time convicting Sokol.
Many folks are applauding Sokol, saying it’s about time that somebody did something to stop thievery and vandals and burglars and assorted criminals. Yes, more should be done but exercising a brand of Wild West justice to protect property is going too far.
According to police, Sokol was fed up. Weeks earlier someone had stolen his quad and since a rash of thefts was ongoing in his Footedale neighborhood, he worried that his replacement ATV would be targeted. So he rigged a baby monitor to the shed and stayed up all night waiting.
His vigil was a success. He heard the lock cut and saw two people. Sokol grabbed a rifle. He told police that he yelled at them and fired a shot in the ground toward the fleeing teens. A bullet hit one of the teens in the arm.
The teen-agers are facing an array of charges. But Sokol is in much deeper trouble.
If the facts of the case bear out through testimony, the teen-aged thieves ought to get what’s coming to them – when the full force of the law is applied. They deserve to be punished.
Perhaps Sokol, given his young age, isn’t yet fully aware that one cannot shoot at people, especially those fleeing from a crime. Had the teens broken into his bedroom and aimed a weapon at him, Sokol would have been justified in protecting his life.
But the law does not allow for ordinary citizens, no matter how outraged, to fire guns at criminal suspects who are not posing a threat of death or bodily harm.
Ordinarily the Herald-Standard refrains from commenting on criminal cases before they are disposed of either through pleas, convictions or dismissal. But this case is troubling in that people throughout the community are talking about it and coming down strongly on the side of vigilante justice.
Some have expressed frustration in that teen suspects (such as the two accused of the break-in) are treated so mildly by the justice system that they continue to flout the law.
They reason that fewer teens would be stealing if they feared that someone would shoot at them to protect their property.
Others are fed up with working hard, saving and finally purchasing long-wanted possessions only to lose them to thieves or have their homes, cars destroyed by vandalism. It’s about time somebody sends a message, they claim.
And don’t look to police. They argue that officers arrive long after the crime is committed, the damage done and other than making a report little is accomplished. Property is rarely recovered. Arrests infrequently made. Punishment is too lenient.
These are all legitimate points, expressed by those fed up with the county’s high crime rate. But shooting suspects isn’t the answer.
Vigilance is part of the answer and is what Sokol started out to do. He had a heightened awareness to a type of crime that was plaguing his area and he was on the lookout for suspicious activity.
Sokol could have armed himself with a videocamera and a phone, called police and given them a videotape with a detailed description of the suspects. Too often police have little to work with in tracking down culprits; this is exactly the kind of information that helps when it comes from alert citizens.
That is why Crime Watch programs are often started. Vigilance pays off. Crime activity drops. The interest in Crime Watch programs also drops off until the next wave hits. Then there is public outcry to do something.
Keeping an eye out for crime and a willingness to testify are needed. Serving up justice at the end of a barrel is not.