Woman charged for trying to shoot tires of shoplifter

[ChrisL]

Let's try to be reasonable here. It's not appropriate to shoot a shop lifter in the back as he or she is running away! If that person had committed a murder and was dangerous and trying to get away, that is another story completely, but not for stealing. Goodness!

However, if they are "in the process" of a robbery attempt, since you have no idea what this person is capable of doing, then you have every right to defend yourself.

Well, I have an opinion on that, but being as arrogant as I am, I had better not give you an opinion. Just try shooting someone in that situation, and have the courts give you your answer!.

There would be a lot less robberies if that were the case.

Having posted this, it was clear to me that you really don't have a question for me, just an opinion to give. I have no problem with that, but I do recognize it as an opinion, not a question.

The law is clear. If a person has a reasonable fear for his life, then that person can defend himself with the use of deadly force. That does not apply in the case of the shoplifter. This is so simple, that I honestly do not know what it is that confuses you. A stranger walking through your back yard at night is not cause for you to shoot him. A stranger that is beating your door down justifies your defending yourself.

That wasn't what we were discussing. I've said what she did was stupid. We were discussing whether or not she should lose her right and, if so, for how long. I asked why you were against mandatory classes for people such as this woman. Now, how about addressing them?

,,and I responded to that question, TWICE. I said that, like a convicted felon, she should lose her CCW for life. I also said that, having drawn her weapon and fired, when any idiot knows that it was inappropriate, she has convinced me that she is unqualified to carry a gun, and that I have no reason to believe that she is ever going to get any smarter, regardless of her being forced to take a course, or not.

If you are asking me if anyone applying for a CCW should take a mandatory course, then I say, yes. Frankly, this woman is too dumb to carry a weapon, course, or not.

But what makes you think your personal opinion of a person that you don't know should matter when it comes to an individual right guaranteed by the constitution? Can you prove to a court of law that this person is mentally defective and incapable of learning and not that she may have just made a bad spur of the moment decision caused by ignorance of how to safely operate her weapon?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Well, I have an opinion on that, but being as arrogant as I am, I had better not give you an opinion. Just try shooting someone in that situation, and have the courts give you your answer!.

There would be a lot less robberies if that were the case.

Having posted this, it was clear to me that you really don't have a question for me, just an opinion to give. I have no problem with that, but I do recognize it as an opinion, not a question.

The law is clear. If a person has a reasonable fear for his life, then that person can defend himself with the use of deadly force. That does not apply in the case of the shoplifter. This is so simple, that I honestly do not know what it is that confuses you. A stranger walking through your back yard at night is not cause for you to shoot him. A stranger that is beating your door down justifies your defending yourself.

That wasn't what we were discussing. I've said what she did was stupid. We were discussing whether or not she should lose her right and, if so, for how long. I asked why you were against mandatory classes for people such as this woman. Now, how about addressing them?

,,and I responded to that question, TWICE. I said that, like a convicted felon, she should lose her CCW for life. I also said that, having drawn her weapon and fired, when any idiot knows that it was inappropriate, she has convinced me that she is unqualified to carry a gun, and that I have no reason to believe that she is ever going to get any smarter, regardless of her being forced to take a course, or not.

If you are asking me if anyone applying for a CCW should take a mandatory course, then I say, yes. Frankly, this woman is too dumb to carry a weapon, course, or not.

But what makes you think your personal opinion of a person that you don't know should matter when it comes to an individual right guaranteed by the constitution? Can you prove to a court of law that this person is mentally defective and incapable of learning and not that she may have just made a bad spur of the moment decision caused by ignorance of how to safely operate her weapon?

A bad spur of the moment decision with a deadly weapon could take the life of someone I love. You should not get a second chance. The person that she could have killed would not have had a second chance either. She, herself, proved that she should not carry a gun into a public place.

 

[ChrisL]

There would be a lot less robberies if that were the case.

Having posted this, it was clear to me that you really don't have a question for me, just an opinion to give. I have no problem with that, but I do recognize it as an opinion, not a question.

The law is clear. If a person has a reasonable fear for his life, then that person can defend himself with the use of deadly force. That does not apply in the case of the shoplifter. This is so simple, that I honestly do not know what it is that confuses you. A stranger walking through your back yard at night is not cause for you to shoot him. A stranger that is beating your door down justifies your defending yourself.

That wasn't what we were discussing. I've said what she did was stupid. We were discussing whether or not she should lose her right and, if so, for how long. I asked why you were against mandatory classes for people such as this woman. Now, how about addressing them?

,,and I responded to that question, TWICE. I said that, like a convicted felon, she should lose her CCW for life. I also said that, having drawn her weapon and fired, when any idiot knows that it was inappropriate, she has convinced me that she is unqualified to carry a gun, and that I have no reason to believe that she is ever going to get any smarter, regardless of her being forced to take a course, or not.

If you are asking me if anyone applying for a CCW should take a mandatory course, then I say, yes. Frankly, this woman is too dumb to carry a weapon, course, or not.

But what makes you think your personal opinion of a person that you don't know should matter when it comes to an individual right guaranteed by the constitution? Can you prove to a court of law that this person is mentally defective and incapable of learning and not that she may have just made a bad spur of the moment decision caused by ignorance of how to safely operate her weapon?

A bad spur of the moment decision with a deadly weapon could take the life of someone I love. You should not get a second chance. The person that she could have killed would not have had a second chance either. She, herself, proved that she should not carry a gun into a public place.

I'm sorry but your personal opinions of another person's mental capacities are not valid in a court of law unless you are a mental health expert who was subpoenaed as an expert witness as to the mental capacity of the person in question.

THIS is what it means to have rights as citizens. People such as yourself cannot just "decide" for another.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Having posted this, it was clear to me that you really don't have a question for me, just an opinion to give. I have no problem with that, but I do recognize it as an opinion, not a question.

The law is clear. If a person has a reasonable fear for his life, then that person can defend himself with the use of deadly force. That does not apply in the case of the shoplifter. This is so simple, that I honestly do not know what it is that confuses you. A stranger walking through your back yard at night is not cause for you to shoot him. A stranger that is beating your door down justifies your defending yourself.

That wasn't what we were discussing. I've said what she did was stupid. We were discussing whether or not she should lose her right and, if so, for how long. I asked why you were against mandatory classes for people such as this woman. Now, how about addressing them?

,,and I responded to that question, TWICE. I said that, like a convicted felon, she should lose her CCW for life. I also said that, having drawn her weapon and fired, when any idiot knows that it was inappropriate, she has convinced me that she is unqualified to carry a gun, and that I have no reason to believe that she is ever going to get any smarter, regardless of her being forced to take a course, or not.

If you are asking me if anyone applying for a CCW should take a mandatory course, then I say, yes. Frankly, this woman is too dumb to carry a weapon, course, or not.

But what makes you think your personal opinion of a person that you don't know should matter when it comes to an individual right guaranteed by the constitution? Can you prove to a court of law that this person is mentally defective and incapable of learning and not that she may have just made a bad spur of the moment decision caused by ignorance of how to safely operate her weapon?

A bad spur of the moment decision with a deadly weapon could take the life of someone I love. You should not get a second chance. The person that she could have killed would not have had a second chance either. She, herself, proved that she should not carry a gun into a public place.

I'm sorry but your personal opinions of another person's mental capacities are not valid in a court of law unless you are a mental health expert who was subpoenaed as an expert witness as to the mental capacity of the person in question.

THIS is what it means to have rights as citizens. People such as yourself cannot just "decide" for another.

Chris, this passive aggressive stuff is getting wearisome. You continuously ask my opinion, and then tell me my opinion counts for nothing. Since we both knew that before either of us posted, it is obvious that you are simply tossing out bait, and them shooting down the answer (which you already knew in advance, as well). Since you do not have any desire to learn, then quit pretending that this is a debate. As i said, before, all you really want is validation of your opinions. i'm done.

 

[Conservative65]

Let's try to be reasonable here. It's not appropriate to shoot a shop lifter in the back as he or she is running away! If that person had committed a murder and was dangerous and trying to get away, that is another story completely, but not for stealing. Goodness!

However, if they are "in the process" of a robbery attempt, since you have no idea what this person is capable of doing, then you have every right to defend yourself.

Well, I have an opinion on that, but being as arrogant as I am, I had better not give you an opinion. Just try shooting someone in that situation, and have the courts give you your answer!.

There would be a lot less robberies if that were the case.

Having posted this, it was clear to me that you really don't have a question for me, just an opinion to give. I have no problem with that, but I do recognize it as an opinion, not a question.

The law is clear. If a person has a reasonable fear for his life, then that person can defend himself with the use of deadly force. That does not apply in the case of the shoplifter. This is so simple, that I honestly do not know what it is that confuses you. A stranger walking through your back yard at night is not cause for you to shoot him. A stranger that is beating your door down justifies your defending yourself.

Incorrect.

The laws of my State indicate that if I deem that person a threat to me, my family, those that may be visiting, etc., I can. It also states that I, not you, get to make that determination.

You go with that. However, I will give you a hint. A jury's decision trumps your decision.

When the jury applies the law as written it's the same as my decision.

Here's how your scenario of the stranger in the back yard would go:

Police Officer (to me) - "Sir, what happened"?

Me (to Officer) - My oldest daughter came running down telling me she saw a stranger in the backyard. When I asked her if she knew who it was, she said "No". I asked my younger daughter the same thing and got the same answer. I didn't recognize him either but knew two things about him. 1) He was where he wasn't supposed to be and 2) he made an extraordinary effort to get there having entered a yard with a 6' tall fence and locked from the inside. Someone that would have to go to that effort to get where he didn't belong is someone for which to concern myself. I told my daughters, both of whom were visibly upset, to go to the other end of the house. I got my gun and went outside. As I approached this person, he picked up an ax (pointing to the ax) that I used to chop logs (pointing to logs) to burn in my outdoor fireplace (pointing to outdoor fireplace) and began swinging. I shot him.

Officer (to uninvited stranger) - "Is that what happened"? No answer is given. Officer asks again with same result.

 

[Conservative65]

Having posted this, it was clear to me that you really don't have a question for me, just an opinion to give. I have no problem with that, but I do recognize it as an opinion, not a question.

The law is clear. If a person has a reasonable fear for his life, then that person can defend himself with the use of deadly force. That does not apply in the case of the shoplifter. This is so simple, that I honestly do not know what it is that confuses you. A stranger walking through your back yard at night is not cause for you to shoot him. A stranger that is beating your door down justifies your defending yourself.

That wasn't what we were discussing. I've said what she did was stupid. We were discussing whether or not she should lose her right and, if so, for how long. I asked why you were against mandatory classes for people such as this woman. Now, how about addressing them?

,,and I responded to that question, TWICE. I said that, like a convicted felon, she should lose her CCW for life. I also said that, having drawn her weapon and fired, when any idiot knows that it was inappropriate, she has convinced me that she is unqualified to carry a gun, and that I have no reason to believe that she is ever going to get any smarter, regardless of her being forced to take a course, or not.

If you are asking me if anyone applying for a CCW should take a mandatory course, then I say, yes. Frankly, this woman is too dumb to carry a weapon, course, or not.

But what makes you think your personal opinion of a person that you don't know should matter when it comes to an individual right guaranteed by the constitution? Can you prove to a court of law that this person is mentally defective and incapable of learning and not that she may have just made a bad spur of the moment decision caused by ignorance of how to safely operate her weapon?

A bad spur of the moment decision with a deadly weapon could take the life of someone I love. You should not get a second chance. The person that she could have killed would not have had a second chance either. She, herself, proved that she should not carry a gun into a public place.

I'm sorry but your personal opinions of another person's mental capacities are not valid in a court of law unless you are a mental health expert who was subpoenaed as an expert witness as to the mental capacity of the person in question.

THIS is what it means to have rights as citizens. People such as yourself cannot just "decide" for another.

Too many like him think they can.

 

[Conservative65]

That wasn't what we were discussing. I've said what she did was stupid. We were discussing whether or not she should lose her right and, if so, for how long. I asked why you were against mandatory classes for people such as this woman. Now, how about addressing them?

,,and I responded to that question, TWICE. I said that, like a convicted felon, she should lose her CCW for life. I also said that, having drawn her weapon and fired, when any idiot knows that it was inappropriate, she has convinced me that she is unqualified to carry a gun, and that I have no reason to believe that she is ever going to get any smarter, regardless of her being forced to take a course, or not.

If you are asking me if anyone applying for a CCW should take a mandatory course, then I say, yes. Frankly, this woman is too dumb to carry a weapon, course, or not.

But what makes you think your personal opinion of a person that you don't know should matter when it comes to an individual right guaranteed by the constitution? Can you prove to a court of law that this person is mentally defective and incapable of learning and not that she may have just made a bad spur of the moment decision caused by ignorance of how to safely operate her weapon?

A bad spur of the moment decision with a deadly weapon could take the life of someone I love. You should not get a second chance. The person that she could have killed would not have had a second chance either. She, herself, proved that she should not carry a gun into a public place.

I'm sorry but your personal opinions of another person's mental capacities are not valid in a court of law unless you are a mental health expert who was subpoenaed as an expert witness as to the mental capacity of the person in question.

THIS is what it means to have rights as citizens. People such as yourself cannot just "decide" for another.

Chris, this passive aggressive stuff is getting wearisome. You continuously ask my opinion, and then tell me my opinion counts for nothing. Since we both knew that before either of us posted, it is obvious that you are simply tossing out bait, and them shooting down the answer (which you already knew in advance, as well). Since you do not have any desire to learn, then quit pretending that this is a debate. As i said, before, all you really want is validation of your opinions. i'm done.

You seem to think that someone asking for you opinion must consider it valid and accept it.

 

[Vandalshandle]

65, I had a friend who was a police officer. He and his partner were called out on a prowler call by a citizen one night. They split up and entered the citizen's back yard from each side. The citizen saw movement in his yard, and had previously armed himself with a rifle. He fired and shot my friend's partner through the head. He died instantly. The citizen was convicted of manslaughter (he was lucky that my friend did not shoot him dead). My friend had a nervous breakdown, which ended his career as a police officer.

There is way too much of the vigilanti shit going down, and the law is reacting, which is why this woman was charged. I suspect that she will be convicted, although only given a suspended sentence.

 

[Vandalshandle]

,,and I responded to that question, TWICE. I said that, like a convicted felon, she should lose her CCW for life. I also said that, having drawn her weapon and fired, when any idiot knows that it was inappropriate, she has convinced me that she is unqualified to carry a gun, and that I have no reason to believe that she is ever going to get any smarter, regardless of her being forced to take a course, or not.

If you are asking me if anyone applying for a CCW should take a mandatory course, then I say, yes. Frankly, this woman is too dumb to carry a weapon, course, or not.

But what makes you think your personal opinion of a person that you don't know should matter when it comes to an individual right guaranteed by the constitution? Can you prove to a court of law that this person is mentally defective and incapable of learning and not that she may have just made a bad spur of the moment decision caused by ignorance of how to safely operate her weapon?

A bad spur of the moment decision with a deadly weapon could take the life of someone I love. You should not get a second chance. The person that she could have killed would not have had a second chance either. She, herself, proved that she should not carry a gun into a public place.

I'm sorry but your personal opinions of another person's mental capacities are not valid in a court of law unless you are a mental health expert who was subpoenaed as an expert witness as to the mental capacity of the person in question.

THIS is what it means to have rights as citizens. People such as yourself cannot just "decide" for another.

Chris, this passive aggressive stuff is getting wearisome. You continuously ask my opinion, and then tell me my opinion counts for nothing. Since we both knew that before either of us posted, it is obvious that you are simply tossing out bait, and them shooting down the answer (which you already knew in advance, as well). Since you do not have any desire to learn, then quit pretending that this is a debate. As i said, before, all you really want is validation of your opinions. i'm done.

You seem to think that someone asking for you opinion must consider it valid and accept it.

I'm really not interested in your posts about me personally. If you can't stay on topic, the posting rules say that you should not post at all.

 

[Conservative65]

But what makes you think your personal opinion of a person that you don't know should matter when it comes to an individual right guaranteed by the constitution? Can you prove to a court of law that this person is mentally defective and incapable of learning and not that she may have just made a bad spur of the moment decision caused by ignorance of how to safely operate her weapon?

A bad spur of the moment decision with a deadly weapon could take the life of someone I love. You should not get a second chance. The person that she could have killed would not have had a second chance either. She, herself, proved that she should not carry a gun into a public place.

I'm sorry but your personal opinions of another person's mental capacities are not valid in a court of law unless you are a mental health expert who was subpoenaed as an expert witness as to the mental capacity of the person in question.

THIS is what it means to have rights as citizens. People such as yourself cannot just "decide" for another.

Chris, this passive aggressive stuff is getting wearisome. You continuously ask my opinion, and then tell me my opinion counts for nothing. Since we both knew that before either of us posted, it is obvious that you are simply tossing out bait, and them shooting down the answer (which you already knew in advance, as well). Since you do not have any desire to learn, then quit pretending that this is a debate. As i said, before, all you really want is validation of your opinions. i'm done.

You seem to think that someone asking for you opinion must consider it valid and accept it.

I'm really not interested in your posts about me personally. If you can't stay on topic, the posting rules say that you should not post at all.

When YOU bring it up, it becomes part of the topic. Typical blame someone else mentality.

 

[Vandalshandle]

A bad spur of the moment decision with a deadly weapon could take the life of someone I love. You should not get a second chance. The person that she could have killed would not have had a second chance either. She, herself, proved that she should not carry a gun into a public place.

I'm sorry but your personal opinions of another person's mental capacities are not valid in a court of law unless you are a mental health expert who was subpoenaed as an expert witness as to the mental capacity of the person in question.

THIS is what it means to have rights as citizens. People such as yourself cannot just "decide" for another.

Chris, this passive aggressive stuff is getting wearisome. You continuously ask my opinion, and then tell me my opinion counts for nothing. Since we both knew that before either of us posted, it is obvious that you are simply tossing out bait, and them shooting down the answer (which you already knew in advance, as well). Since you do not have any desire to learn, then quit pretending that this is a debate. As i said, before, all you really want is validation of your opinions. i'm done.

You seem to think that someone asking for you opinion must consider it valid and accept it.

I'm really not interested in your posts about me personally. If you can't stay on topic, the posting rules say that you should not post at all.

When YOU bring it up, it becomes part of the topic. Typical blame someone else mentality.

ignored.

 

[Conservative65]

I'm sorry but your personal opinions of another person's mental capacities are not valid in a court of law unless you are a mental health expert who was subpoenaed as an expert witness as to the mental capacity of the person in question.

THIS is what it means to have rights as citizens. People such as yourself cannot just "decide" for another.

Chris, this passive aggressive stuff is getting wearisome. You continuously ask my opinion, and then tell me my opinion counts for nothing. Since we both knew that before either of us posted, it is obvious that you are simply tossing out bait, and them shooting down the answer (which you already knew in advance, as well). Since you do not have any desire to learn, then quit pretending that this is a debate. As i said, before, all you really want is validation of your opinions. i'm done.

You seem to think that someone asking for you opinion must consider it valid and accept it.

I'm really not interested in your posts about me personally. If you can't stay on topic, the posting rules say that you should not post at all.

When YOU bring it up, it becomes part of the topic. Typical blame someone else mentality.

ignored.

Run like a little bitch. It's what you're good at.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Didn't I agree with you?
Shoot that dirty shoplifter in the head!
And shoot people that walk out of a shop knowing that they've been given too much change...damned thieves!

And shoot jaywalkers too...if you don't follow the rules then you deserve to die.

Oooo...ooo...what about those dirty bastards that spit on the sidewalk!
I hate that...gun them down too I say!

Well, there are certainly different degrees of thievery. If a person breaks into your home to steal things and you are there? Then, yes, I think you should be able to defend yourself as well as your property, and your store too, such as if looters or thieves are trying to rob you.

You don't need to carry a concealed weapon for either of those scenarios.

You are such a know-it-all, telling thers what they "need." Puuhleese!

Ok, if you don't like that answer, here is another one. A felon loses his right to own a gun forever. So should she.

Well, I would disagree with that too. I think that only violent crimes that were committed with a gun should be the requirement that the government has to prove before messing with a citizen's rights.

The woman in the OP committed a violent crime with a gun.

 

[anotherlife]

She should go to jail and pay reparations, tires are not cheap, but why take away her gun from her? Just double up her jail time, I think.

Who gives a fuck about the price of a criminals tires?

What if it was not the criminal's tires but his momma's?

 

[GHook93]

US woman charged for shooting at fleeing shoplifter

A perfect example of a CCW person playing Charles Bronson in a busy parking lot, and putting bystanders at risk.

Is she what some call a "responsible gun owner"?

If she listened in her conceal carry class then she would know that you can only use deadly force when threatened with deadly force. You can't shoot a shop lifter who is running away (a police officer is under a different standard). They also teach you not to shoot into a crowd!

 

[ABikerSailor]

I'm still wondering why the first targets she decided on were the car tires? I mean, if you miss, you're going to get a ricochet that will go up off of the pavement, or possibly may ricochet off of the rims.

Additionally, moving small targets are EXTREMELY hard to hit. If she wanted to stop them, she should have shot out the windshield. Better chance of hitting a large target than a small one, and it would have put glass into the driver's face, stopping them, but if not, they wouldn't get very far without a windshield.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Chris, this passive aggressive stuff is getting wearisome. You continuously ask my opinion, and then tell me my opinion counts for nothing. Since we both knew that before either of us posted, it is obvious that you are simply tossing out bait, and them shooting down the answer (which you already knew in advance, as well). Since you do not have any desire to learn, then quit pretending that this is a debate. As i said, before, all you really want is validation of your opinions. i'm done.

You seem to think that someone asking for you opinion must consider it valid and accept it.

I'm really not interested in your posts about me personally. If you can't stay on topic, the posting rules say that you should not post at all.

When YOU bring it up, it becomes part of the topic. Typical blame someone else mentality.

ignored.

Run like a little bitch. It's what you're good at.

He ignores everyone who exposes him for the sniveling coward he is.

 

[Conservative65]

You seem to think that someone asking for you opinion must consider it valid and accept it.

I'm really not interested in your posts about me personally. If you can't stay on topic, the posting rules say that you should not post at all.

When YOU bring it up, it becomes part of the topic. Typical blame someone else mentality.

ignored.

Run like a little bitch. It's what you're good at.

He ignores everyone who exposes him for the sniveling coward he is.

He had a problem with a term I used. I wonder if he applies the same standard to blacks who said it.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, there are certainly different degrees of thievery. If a person breaks into your home to steal things and you are there? Then, yes, I think you should be able to defend yourself as well as your property, and your store too, such as if looters or thieves are trying to rob you.

You don't need to carry a concealed weapon for either of those scenarios.

You are such a know-it-all, telling thers what they "need." Puuhleese!

Ok, if you don't like that answer, here is another one. A felon loses his right to own a gun forever. So should she.

Well, I would disagree with that too. I think that only violent crimes that were committed with a gun should be the requirement that the government has to prove before messing with a citizen's rights.

The woman in the OP committed a violent crime with a gun.

Since her intent (and that DOES count) was not to commit a crime, then no.

 

[turtledude]

[

If she listened in her conceal carry class then she would know that you can only use deadly force when threatened with deadly force. You can't shoot a shop lifter who is running away (a police officer is under a different standard). They also teach you not to shoot into a crowd!

you are slightly wrong-police officers cannot shoot someone unless that person is acting in a way to cause a reasonable person to believe the target's action will cause an innocent imminent severe bodily harm