Woman charged for trying to shoot tires of shoplifter

[The Professor]

You don't resort to a firearm to solve a petty shoplifting problem. In cases of armed robbery, yes, and in certain cases of grand larceny, perhaps... but shoplifting? Hell no​

I respectfully disagree.

As far as those who commit grand larceny are concerned, even the police are not justified in using deadly force to prevent their escape.

IIn Tennessee v. Garner, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) examined a Tennessee State statute which allowed the police to use deadly force against ALL fleeing felony suspects. The SCOTUS disagreed, ruling that deadly force could only be used to prevent the escape of a dangerous felon. The following are pertinent portions of the Supreme Court's Court's findings (highlights are my own):

“The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.

“However, it is not unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.”

Tennessee v. Garner | Cop Block

Conclusion. Not even the police have a right right to use deadly force to prevent to escape of a criminal suspect unless the person is a dangerous felon. A dangerous felon is described as someone who has inflicted or threatened to inflict serous bodily injury or death. One who commits larceny is not a dangerous felon by any definition.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

The laws of my State say that people have a right to protect themselves, their families, and other from intruders or attackers with the expectation of remaining unmolested and safe in their homes, businesses, and vehicles. While the two scenarios above may not required concealed weapons, my states grants the right of someone outside of their home to protect themselves in situations where it does.

By the way, they have that right without fear of civil or criminal prosecution.

Nobody is that obtuse, Conservative. You have the right to protect yourself if you are threatened. This guy didn't threaten anyone. If she had shot him, she would have won the civil suit, and the shooter would have gotten the slammer for manslaughter.

Were you there? Depends on whose on the jury. Bleeding hearts like you would. Honorable people who know a thief is a thief wouldn't.

Well, since the police have brought charges, I guess that they are not honorable in your eyes.

Are the police a jury? You really are that stupid. The police bringing charges, which I expected, is quite different from a jury. Not surprised you don't know the difference.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Trying to shoot the fucking tires out... good grief.

I agree. Deflection is dangerous. The first shot takes the glass, the second tap goes to the head.

I doubt a dumb hoe who thinks it's wise to open fire in a public parking lot can make a head shot

She should have shot the thief in the head and done the rest of us a favor.

Here you are, RWer's. You own him. He is the poster child of why there are plenty of people walking around who don't have the judgement necessary to be a responsible gun owner.

You admitted you wouldn't know how to size up a situation at a Waffle House before blowing people away. People like you should never carry.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

This woman was an idiot.

Yes... she was.

Now... So what?

 

[Vandalshandle]

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"?

legally, you can only use deadly force when you have a reasonable belief that failing to do so will cause you or another innocent to suffer imminent severe bodily harm

so what she did was improper. and a shoplifter is not a criminal activity that justifies using such force

however, I don't really get all worked up if criminals get shot

How do you feel about her losing her right to carry because of this incident? For a little while, forever, not at all?

It's not a matter of 'losing' her right to carry a concealed weapon, she forfeited that right, the consequence of her ignorance and stupidity.

If she's convicted of a felony, and that conviction prevents her from possessing a firearm or carrying a concealed weapon, she has only herself to blame.

Careful, Clayton. If you disagree with Conservative ( who also disagrees with the law), then he will call you an "arrogant piece of shit", and that just ruins my whole day when he does that.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Trying to shoot the fucking tires out... good grief.

I agree. Deflection is dangerous. The first shot takes the glass, the second tap goes to the head.

I doubt a dumb hoe who thinks it's wise to open fire in a public parking lot can make a head shot

She should have shot the thief in the head and done the rest of us a favor.

Here you are, RWer's. You own him. He is the poster child of why there are plenty of people walking around who don't have the judgement necessary to be a responsible gun owner.

You admitted you wouldn't know how to size up a situation at a Waffle House before blowing people away. People like you should never carry.

Yet he could walk in and out of a gun shop with whatever he wanted in 10 minutes. Hmm.

 

[Conservative65]

I agree. Deflection is dangerous. The first shot takes the glass, the second tap goes to the head.

I doubt a dumb hoe who thinks it's wise to open fire in a public parking lot can make a head shot

She should have shot the thief in the head and done the rest of us a favor.

Here you are, RWer's. You own him. He is the poster child of why there are plenty of people walking around who don't have the judgement necessary to be a responsible gun owner.

You admitted you wouldn't know how to size up a situation at a Waffle House before blowing people away. People like you should never carry.

Yet he could walk in and out of a gun shop with whatever he wanted in 10 minutes. Hmm.

Don't need to. Already have what I need.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I agree. Deflection is dangerous. The first shot takes the glass, the second tap goes to the head.

I doubt a dumb hoe who thinks it's wise to open fire in a public parking lot can make a head shot

She should have shot the thief in the head and done the rest of us a favor.

Here you are, RWer's. You own him. He is the poster child of why there are plenty of people walking around who don't have the judgement necessary to be a responsible gun owner.

You admitted you wouldn't know how to size up a situation at a Waffle House before blowing people away. People like you should never carry.

Yet he could walk in and out of a gun shop with whatever he wanted in 10 minutes. Hmm.

I know. That scares me too. If we're lucky, he got popped for domestic violence after backhanding his live in girlfriend and he can't legally have a gun.

 

[TheOldSchool]

I doubt a dumb hoe who thinks it's wise to open fire in a public parking lot can make a head shot

She should have shot the thief in the head and done the rest of us a favor.

Here you are, RWer's. You own him. He is the poster child of why there are plenty of people walking around who don't have the judgement necessary to be a responsible gun owner.

You admitted you wouldn't know how to size up a situation at a Waffle House before blowing people away. People like you should never carry.

Yet he could walk in and out of a gun shop with whatever he wanted in 10 minutes. Hmm.

Don't need to. Already have what I need.

I wasn't talking to you idiot. Stop responding to me.

 

[turtledude]

[
Careful, Clayton. If you disagree with Conservative ( who also disagrees with the law), then he will call you an "arrogant piece of shit", and that just ruins my whole day when he does that.

you're just a moron pure and simple

 

[Vandalshandle]

You are saying that I am not "honorable" for recognizing that she was doing the right thing by shooting at the guy's tires. The cops feel the same way I do. Are they "honorable"?

 

[turtledude]

You don't resort to a firearm to solve a petty shoplifting problem. In cases of armed robbery, yes, and in certain cases of grand larceny, perhaps... but shoplifting? Hell no​

I respectfully disagree.

As far as those who commit grand larceny are concerned, even the police are not justified in using deadly force to prevent their escape.

IIn Tennessee v. Garner, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) examined a Tennessee State statute which allowed the police to use deadly force against ALL fleeing felony suspects. The SCOTUS disagreed, ruling that deadly force could only be used to prevent the escape of a dangerous felon. The following are pertinent portions of the Supreme Court's Court's findings (highlights are my own):

“The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.

“However, it is not unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.”

Tennessee v. Garner | Cop Block

Conclusion. Not even the police have a right right to use deadly force to prevent to escape of a criminal suspect unless the person is a dangerous felon. A dangerous felon is described as someone who has inflicted or threatened to inflict serous bodily injury or death. One who commits larceny is not a dangerous felon by any definition.

an accurate reflection of the law

turtledude Esq-retired prosecutor

 

[Vandalshandle]

You know, if Jack Ruby had lived, he would have gotten the chair for shooting Oswald. He just did us all a big favor and died on his own.

 

[idb]

How do you feel about her losing her right to carry because of this incident? For a little while, forever, not at all?

No one needs to carry a concealed weapon in a urban environment, unless you carry a lot on money, or something like that. In addition, she has shown why she should not have such a license. The cops are making a statement about this issue, and using her as an example, and rightly so. If she wants to keep a gun in her home, fine. She doesn't need to be walking the streets with a gun, and since it was a no brainer that she should not have drawn her weapon in the first place, I have no confidence that she is going to be any smarter next time.

Who the hell do you think you are to determine what someone needs or doesn't need to do. I don't think you should be allowed in public. Are you willing to stay hidden because you've shown you're an idiot.

I'm sure that there is an anger management class near where you live, Conservative.

I'm sure that you will never understand the concept that an adult thief is a thief no matter how much of how little they steal.

Perhaps we should bring back crucifixion?

Too good for 'em I say!

 

[September]

You don't resort to a firearm to solve a petty shoplifting problem. In cases of armed robbery, yes, and in certain cases of grand larceny, perhaps... but shoplifting? Hell no​

I respectfully disagree.

As far as those who commit grand larceny are concerned, even the police are not justified in using deadly force to prevent their escape.

IIn Tennessee v. Garner, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) examined a Tennessee State statute which allowed the police to use deadly force against ALL fleeing felony suspects. The SCOTUS disagreed, ruling that deadly force could only be used to prevent the escape of a dangerous felon. The following are pertinent portions of the Supreme Court's Court's findings (highlights are my own):

“The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.

“However, it is not unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.”

Tennessee v. Garner | Cop Block

Conclusion. Not even the police have a right right to use deadly force to prevent to escape of a criminal suspect unless the person is a dangerous felon. A dangerous felon is described as someone who has inflicted or threatened to inflict serous bodily injury or death. One who commits larceny is not a dangerous felon by any definition.

Regardless what the law says, if someone were to try and run off with a painting at one of my art galleries, they are getting shot in the f'ing kneecaps

​

 

[Vandalshandle]

A guy stole my vacuum cleaner out of my car once. It was broken, and I was going to take it in for repair. I wonder if it would have been appropriate to gun him down with my 9MM as he was leaving the ally behind my house?

 

[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.

 

[theHawk]

She should've just shot the thieves dead. Two less Detroit thugs to worry about.

 

[Vandalshandle]

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!.

 

[Vandalshandle]

She should had just shot the thieves dead. Two less Detroit thugs to worry about.

"Jesus wept".