Michael Bordon/U.S. LawShield Photo

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.

73 COMMENTS

    • After reading the linked ABC article, it isn’t clear to me if the defendant had reasonable cause to fear or not. The articles (TTAG and ABC) state that the thief “entered the vehicle” and little more. Was the thief armed with any type of weapon, or verbally communicate a threat to perpetrate harm to the defendant? Was the entrance into the vehicle forceful and aggressive into the front seat, or did calmly slip into the back seat? Is there any video evidence (typically drivers who carry cash or goods – think Uber, DoorDash, et al – like to install vid cams to record the interior)?

      Tough for me to form an opinion on such scant details.

      • Serious question here, do Uber and DoorDash drivers carry cash for work? I thought it was all cashless. I have never used Doordash so I could be wrong. I do agree that it is common for Uber drivers to have cameras though and more details would be helpful.

  1. Stealing people’s stuff is a risky profession. Matthias Crockett accepted that risk. Hopefully, his family will find solace in the fact that he died doing what he loved.

  2. Two different arguments.

    1). Does theft of property justify use of lethal force?
    A). in most all states, No.

    2). Should it justify the use of lethal force in all parts of the USA including protectorates?
    A). Yes.

    Property is purchased with money, money in most all cases represents work spent making the money. That is hours, days, weeks, months of my life spent making the money needed to buy the property.

    When someone steals my property, they’re stealing my life.

    I’m not saying you should shoot someone just for stealing your stuff, I’m saying you should have the right to shoot someone stealing you stuff.

    America needs to take the handcuffs off its citizens. We dont need police to stop many crimes that we are subjected too. we just need the cops not to arrest and/or allow the courts to sue us into oblivion when we do.

    • I was just gonna say the same thing. Theft of property represents theft of life — the time and effort that went into acquiring said property. People absolutely have the right to use deadly force to protect possessions, a right that has been taken away from us by an activist government.

    • I also agree. When you steal from somebody, you have stolen their TIME. The time they spent earning the money to buy that thing you covet.

      They might be able to go back to work all over again and buy another of that thing, but it’s wrong that they have to. Or, they might not be ABLE to go back to work. They may have new life’s limits, or they may have new responsibilities that preclude being able to go back to work to replace the thing that was stolen.

      Some countries recognize this and make theft a very highly punished crime; even to the point of the thief losing personal freedoms, honor, and sometimes, his or her own body parts.

      I would have to vote “not guilty” on this one, even taking into consideration my normal bias toward due process. Everybody should get a free shot or three at thieves. Just make sure you’ve got the actual thief.

    • horse thieves used to be hung in town square. They’d oft time throw a party on the day the hangings were to happen.
      Horse theft was not too often an occurrence. I wonder why

      • Or People that steal stuff do so with the knowledge that it might go belly up I would say that is a way better deterrent than our cat-gloved Justice system. Which has been absolutely infected with Leftist/Democrat pro-criminal pandering.

        Insurance is a generally good idea. However, that also has serious downsides. One, the insurance company may arbitrarily change their coverage terms. Which all they have to do is send you a letter, stating “coverage rules has changed”. That has been seen done multiple times (Louisiana prior to Katrina, NC/TN prior to the recent Hurricane, CA virtually every year with fires). Insurance though generally not a “poor” idea is hardly a good solution.

        The solution is explicit consequences for criminal activity. Which has grossly been ignored or softened. Dubai, I could have left my wallet on the table of the establishment. It would have a 99.9% chance of still being there. Why? Because they don’t treat theft as a “oopsie, please don’t do it again” like the American Courts do.

    • “When someone steals my property, they’re stealing my life.”

      *facepalm* This again, really?

      …and Conservatives wonder why people sometimes look at them askance.

      Lethal or potentially lethal force is reserved for situations where a court cannot make you whole even in theory, that is, death or grave bodily harm to you or another. These are things which no court can restore to you/you to. This is why using lethal or potentially lethal force is legal in situations where such an outcome is a legitimate fear.

      That’s the ENTIRE LOGICAL UNDERPINNING of laws regarding self-defense if someone ends up dead. So, let’s not go undermining it the way the Left does, eh?

      Now, with regards to property, a court can in fact make you whole. Not only that, they can make you whole plus some by tacking on interest or a fee to the whole thing. This was known and practiced literally thousands of years ago as a fix to allowing people to kill others over property which rapidly turned into a method to murder someone and get away with it.

      The answer, going back to the roots of Western civilization is for a court to impose this thing we call “restitution” and do so in a value multiples of the thing stolen. Lost $100? They owe you $400 sort of thing. This was referred to as “restorative justice” for thousands of years before the modern Left got ahold of that term and corrupted it.

      Now, maybe the judge doesn’t like that idea and just wants to jail someone as a sign of the power of the state while leaving you in the lurch, kinda like what happens in monarchies.

      Ok, well then the answer is to get your legislature to alter the sentencing guidelines/law for theft, not alter the law so you can haul off and undermine the entire basis of self-defense law because you got some feelz when someone touched your circular saw.

      All of which, by the by for you Stargate fans out there, means that a judge is kind of a Wraith in a lot of ways if you buy the idea that “he’s stealing my life, your Honor!”.

  3. This writing, much like the media reports, conveniently ignors the fact that the DA in the case has stated that a gun was found with the dead teen.

    But hey, whatever it takes to get those clicks…right?

    • Hey JimB, where did you and Edgar T. below get that info? We’d love to corroborate it. First off, we didn’t “conveniently ignore” that aspect. This is TTAG, so we would certainly make that argument if we had had that information. All of the articles we have found on the case do not include anything about him being found with a gun in his possession or that he was indeed in a street gang. So they may have “conveniently ignored” it, but we just go with what information we have at hand. Just so you understand it. But please supply the facts so we can include them…and you heard it from your buddy doesn’t count.

      • I’m with you, Doug. For TTAG’s responsibility to the truth, we have to know that you need to depend on sources, so I’d be interested to see what JimB and Edgar T have to say.

        But I’m still sticking with my feeling that we should be able to shoot thieves.

        • I agree on that too Osprey, but until we get the law changed on it, which is unlikely to happen, I’m going to do my best to balance keeping myself safe and not landing my butt in prison. Dead or in prison are two outcomes I’d like to avoid–in the case of prison, forever, and in the case of death, as long as I can.

          • I definitely agree with you. There is no good middle ground here with the present law. Because even if you respond “legally” nothing prevents the perp from instantly jumping to “deadly force”. At which point you are way behind the 8-Ball… IF the perp was located and arrested, it isn’t like the present sentencing/justice system does any acceptable degree of consequence/deterrence.

      • “..we just go with what information we have at hand.”..come on, Doug – that sounds like something MSM would say and do. Maybe try to get an official police report before you “go with whatever information..”..If you are trying to make a point with the article about the personal defense/protection of property law dichotomy, then use or write an article from a hypothetical perspective, not a concrete case.

      • From WSOC-TV website…Local Charlotte TV Station

        “While the affidavit says Crockett was unarmed, in court, the DA’s office says a gun was found near the victim. Crockett was inside Boyd’s car when he was shot and killed.”

        h ttps://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/medic-1-killed-uptown-charlotte-shooting/6GYORW7HNVBLLDL5Y3U276RSD4/

        ABC 11…Central NC TV Station

        “The affidavit said the 15-year-old was unarmed, but the DA said a gun was found near the victim.”

        h ttps://abc11.com/post/doordash-driver-faces-murder-charges-shooting-teen-stop-attempted-car-theft-charlotte-north-carolina/15832630/

        Let me know if you need any further help with researching your articles.

        • As usual, the “authors” of these website articles are lazy AF and just copy press releases and other news stories. No real research or editing is done, because it would take work that would cost far more than the pittance they make running these third-rate websites. It seems to be a problem on both the right and the left. Local newspapers are especially terrible.

          And I won’t even get into the spelling, grammatical, and stylistic errors these illiterates make.

      • Forgot one. The Charlotte Observer….Charlotte’s local newspaper.

        “A police affidavit said Boyd admitted to shooting Crockett with a 9mm pistol and that the teen was unarmed. But the District Attorney’s office said a gun was found near Crockett, who was fatally shot while inside Boyd’s car…”

        h ttps://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article299094220.html

        As for any street gang affiliation or criminal history, I have not read anything that supports that…no did I mention it in my original comment.

        • Gang affiliation history is only useful IF there has been a prior conviction or some other known/documented connection. The issue is that most street gangs don’t keep a roster anywhere. So many of their members are “off-grid” and not trackable.

          Great job! I am sure not the only one that appreciates that you did due diligence on reporting.

      • “This is TTAG, so we would certainly make that argument if we had had that information.”

        “But please supply the facts so we can include them…”

        So Doug…you have been provided with the credible facts you ask for. So when do you plan to update this article to include them?

  4. Article fails to mention that the car thief was in a street gang that requires a violent crime to gain membership. Article fails to mention that thief was in said gang at least since age 9. Article failed to share the photos of the thief and his friend holding an AK47 and handgun. This was not your typical 15 y/o. He was a veteran gangster.

      • Vigilantes got the rope in a lot of places too, something rarely mentioned.

        As I pointed out to another person here maybe a month ago, yes there are laws allowing you to shoot someone over a horse or something but they are never blanket laws and in most cases (not all) they require something else, like proof that loss of that/those animals was a threat to you/your family.

        There are numerous cases where rustlers were hanged by an actual court, though often (again, not always) this was due to other circumstances such as the fact that they killed people while rustling. Some were hanged purely for rustling.

        Riding out “for justice” OTOH, was pretty much always seen as murder if a judge hadn’t signed off on it and many of the people who did that were later captured and hanged themselves.

    • No they didn’t actually. There isn’t a single recorded instance of a horse thief being hung after being tried in a US sanctioned court of law. Vigilantes and lynch mobs absolutely did hang them, especially in the un annexed territories and not under the law of the US. This is an extremely irritating and repeatedly debunked myth

      • “No they didn’t actually. There isn’t a single recorded instance of a horse thief being hung after being tried in a US sanctioned court of law. ”

        Asheville, Buncombe County, North Carolina – two men, James Snead and James Henry, accused of horse theft were tried by a court and found guilty of horse theft and sentenced to be hanged. The sentence was carried out about two weeks later after sentencing and they were hanged May 29, 1835 at around 2PM.

        There are also incidents from 1850–1890 where horse theft was an element in the commission of another crime. But although no law on the books for hanging for horse theft, being convicted of the other crime instead of horse theft the horse theft did contribute to the court deciding to impose a sentence for hanging for the other crime.

        • Excellent job!

          If you go back further (Danelaw, specifically), death sentence applied to stealing of cattle, boats or other livelihood goods. Danelaw was the basis of English Common Law. Which the US used as its foundational case law. So you are correct sir! The other gentlemen are in fact incorrect, historically.

        • Hrm, I’m not so sure this wasn’t armed robbery.

          They then engaged Holcombe, who couldn’t and wouldn’t play, Holcombe testified; but Henry made himself Holcombe’s proxy and bet Holcombe’s mare — and lost. Holcombe yielded when Snead brandished a dirk.

          https://www.c itizen-times. com/st ory/news/local/2016/02/20/hanging-2-horse-thieves-asheville-1835/80663312/

        • I suspect this was actually a case of armed robbery that they were hanged for.

          They then engaged Holcombe, who couldn’t and wouldn’t play, Holcombe testified; but Henry made himself Holcombe’s proxy and bet Holcombe’s mare — and lost. Holcombe yielded when Snead brandished a dirk.

          h-t-t-p-s-:-/-/-www.citizen-times. com/st ory/news/local/2016/02/20/hanging-2-horse-thieves-asheville-1835/80663312/

  5. I can think of two incidents in the past couple of years where federal agents fired on car thieves. I never heard if those agents were reprimanded.

    • Byrna, Sabre, and the other “non-lethal” solutions definitely come with their own weaknesses and risks.

      I’m thinking along the lines of how “warning shots” can be viewed in a court of law. “If you fired a warning shot, you didn’t think that you were in a lethal-force scenario.”

      “If you shot him with a Sabre Launcher, it wasn’t because you didn’t want to kill him. You did that because you didn’t think you were in a lethal-force scenario. But then moments later, you drew your Colt and you finished him off while he was helplessly coughing and puking his guts out on the sidewalk.”

      Prosecuting attorneys, or plaintiff’s attorneys, will absolutely misrepresent your intentions in court. They’ll do it at the first opportunity, and they’ll do” it repeatedly, even after the judge tells them to “move on, counselor.”

      One risk is that you might shoot a person who then has a severe allergic reaction to the capsaicin or other chemicals therein. If that person goes into anaphylactic shock and ends up with brain damage, nerve damage, blindness, or death? I don’t know if any of those things can be the end-result, but hey, we’re talking about chemical irritants in an age where peanut-dust can kill, so anything can happen.

      So now the janky snot who tried to steal your only form of transportation, you shot your Byrna at him, and the little snot had the bad fortune to go into shock, have a stroke, and is now a mental vegetable, and the family is going after you for financial help to keep his worthless carcass alive on machines.

      I don’t know…but I think if there’s a chance I could get sued, I’d almost rather shoot the thief with a real bullet. The little snot could still have a stroke, but at least with one of Hornady’s best, he might at least end up with a scar.

      • I see that you made the case, I usually do. Those launchers are also not as effective as advertised. Sure, they will work on *most people. However, there are a LOT of people still that it won’t affect much. That would include anyone that regularly consumes spicy foods, exposed to OC regularly or genetically dispositioned. All those possible factors can instantly turn your “non-lethal” incident into a different beast.

        I say that as someone that OC doesn’t incapacitate. It just pisses me off. That is before you get into situations, like some guys I know, whom can literally eat that stuff.

        You are absolutely correct regarding the attorneys. If there is a way to defame you, they absolutely will.

  6. The law needs to be changed. Nothing wrong with deadly force in response to armed robbery.
    Armed robbery is stealing from the person with force or threat of force.

  7. Ok, here is what CHARLOTTE, N.C. (WBTV) local station reported…

    The man left the car running, went back inside his home, and came out to find another person (Matthias Crockett) in their car: “Officers said a ‘confrontation’ then happened and a struggle inside of the car, which ended with shots being fired.”

    h ttps://www.wbtv.com/2025/01/24/live-stream-family-million-youth-march-holding-press-conference-charlotte-teens-death/

    • Thanks for the added play-by-play color, 40.

      I never leave my car running while I go back into my house.

      Oh wait, I just did that the yesterday. I started the car, got a warning that the left rear tire was only 21 PSI, and went into the garage to grab my battery-powered pump and an 18 volt battery pack.

      So I kind of did leave my car running, even though it was for less than a minute. But for somebody to steal it, he would have had to come up ON MY PROPERTY, and then he would have had to GET INSIDE MY PROPERTY (the car). Once he did that, then well…IT’S ON. That should be the law, anyhow.

    • You should never leave a car while its running. They do sell secure idle kits where a car can idle without the keys in the ignition but can’t be put into gear without them. Police cars often have secure idle kits installed. Some places its even illegal to idle while parked. This doesn’t absolve a thief of blame, but one should try not aid their own victimization which is often called self victimization. IE don’t be stupid or lazy as crooks will take advantage of it.

  8. Well, then, the police, lawyers, judges and legislators should be willing and able to reimburse people for their stolen property losses and lost income because of such. I’m sick of people telling us what we’re supposed to put up with when they have no skin in the game.

    To me, there is no limit to self defense for personal and or property safety.

  9. I had a great, great grandfather who was a sheriff in the late 1800’s in Texas. He hung thirty seven men for horse and cattle rustling and some other things, some of his own relatives also. Stealing a persons horses and or cattle was a life or death situation to those victims at times and or it could ruin a family financially. Although the situation is somewhat different today the same things hold. When you’re being robbed, it could easily be a life/death situation and still can cause great financial hardship. Either way, the lawbreakers are stealing at least a part of your life. They have no right to do that and the legal system blows so do what you have to.

  10. The cop truck is to jump in front of the car. Then it becomes assault with a deadly weapon even if the driver backs up or turns away and lethal force is justified.

    Learn from the cops.

    • Shire-mab, that no longer works in the lefty state I’m stuck in (MD). The state Attorney General’s Office – Independent Investigations Division was created in 2021, led by the prosecutor from Ferguson, to take a third look at charging police officers (after Internal Affairs, then the local county State’s Attorney, third review is the state IID. It sprang from the riots and police-reform/social-justice movements and is widely reviled by MD law enforcement for its criminal-friendly leanings).

      IID seems to feel that a cop jumping in front of a criminal’s vehicle (even if legitimately trying to arrest an escaping robber/burglar/murderer/whatever) is ‘police-induced exigency’… basically the cop’s fault he put himself in a position where he had to use deadly force, therefore the cop should be charged with murder/manslaughter etc…IID is altering the way alot of people I know in law enforcement approach pursuits and deadly force situations, and not for the better…

  11. i just have a question regarding the incident—-the owner of the auto was an ‘uber driver’, so even just stealing the vehicle affects his livelihood…not just his transportation…

  12. The question is not do you value your property more than the criminal’s life, but did the criminal value HIS life less than your property.

  13. Dated a woman who was a PO and was talking to one of her parolees. He shot and killed a man while shooting dice in Dallas in the early 1970s over a nickel. I commented that was a bit extreme over a nickel and he said “It looks a lot different when it is your nickel “.

  14. The victim does not know the criminal’s full intent, whether the criminal has a weapon, or whether the criminal has an accomplice or accomplices and the victim should have no duty to study the issues before acting against a violent attack or theft. Data shows these young punks become career criminals and society should not be forced to suffer them.

  15. I am not a lawyer but… In my state the difference would be if the act was a robbery or a theft. A robbery is a crime for which the use of deadly force is specifically authorized as preventative measure. Theft does not rise to the same level. So, if the criminal just jumped in the car and drove away deadly force would not be authorized.

  16. “The kid maybe didn’t deserve to die for stealing a car”? (The author IS really one of “those”) Ummmm yes he did, some people’ depend upon their vehices for their livelihoods and can’t afford deductibles or replacement costs. In this case what was the victim supposed to do … I’ll guess you suggest he should’ve waited until he got shot or run over by the thief BEFORE opening fire as the incident happened in “Defund The Police” Charlotte where odds of law enforcement showing up are slim-to-none.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here