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.

 

[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!.

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

Then, undoubtedly, the courts would decide in your favor, regardless of the details of the case.

 

[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.

Then, undoubtedly, the courts would decide in your favor, regardless of the details of the case.

Is this what you call an argument? In some states, you are indeed allowed to shoot a person who is in the process of breaking into your home.

 

[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.

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 kneecap

​

I understand your love of art. You are willing to do whatever it takes to protect the things you treasure and there is a measure of honor in your position. My hope for you is that if such a situation develops you can find a sympathetic jury.

 

[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!.

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

Then, undoubtedly, the courts would decide in your favor, regardless of the details of the case.

Is this what you call an argument? In some states, you are indeed allowed to shoot a person who is in the process of breaking into your home.

Chris, you are not looking for an argument. You are seeking validation of what you believe to be right. I speak to what the LAW reads. The two concepts will not compute together.

 

[turtledude]

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.

another accurate reflection of the law in most states if not all

 

[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.

Then, undoubtedly, the courts would decide in your favor, regardless of the details of the case.

Is this what you call an argument? In some states, you are indeed allowed to shoot a person who is in the process of breaking into your home.

Chris, you are not looking for an argument. You are seeking validation of what you believe to be right. I speak to what the LAW reads. The two concepts will not compute together.

Oops! Your arrogance is showing again!

 

[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.

Then, undoubtedly, the courts would decide in your favor, regardless of the details of the case.

Is this what you call an argument? In some states, you are indeed allowed to shoot a person who is in the process of breaking into your home.

Chris, you are not looking for an argument. You are seeking validation of what you believe to be right. I speak to what the LAW reads. The two concepts will not compute together.

What about states with castle doctrine?

 

[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.

Then, undoubtedly, the courts would decide in your favor, regardless of the details of the case.

Is this what you call an argument? In some states, you are indeed allowed to shoot a person who is in the process of breaking into your home.

Chris, you are not looking for an argument. You are seeking validation of what you believe to be right. I speak to what the LAW reads. The two concepts will not compute together.

Oops! Your arrogance is showing again!

And to think that I thought that I could get right down to the nitty gritty of your question, and why you would not like my answer. My bad. You will find the answer that you are looking for on Rush's radio show. Adios.

 

[ChrisL]

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

Then, undoubtedly, the courts would decide in your favor, regardless of the details of the case.

Is this what you call an argument? In some states, you are indeed allowed to shoot a person who is in the process of breaking into your home.

Chris, you are not looking for an argument. You are seeking validation of what you believe to be right. I speak to what the LAW reads. The two concepts will not compute together.

Oops! Your arrogance is showing again!

And to think that I thought that I could get right down to the nitty gritty of your question, and why you would not like my answer. My bad. You will find the answer that you are looking for on Rush's radio show. Adios.

Well, you haven't really addressed any of my points. You make a lot of statements about how you might think I feel about things is about it.

 

[turtledude]

And to think that I thought that I could get right down to the nitty gritty of your question, and why you would not like my answer. My bad. You will find the answer that you are looking for on Rush's radio show. Adios.

You're an attorney or just playing one on a message board

 

[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!.

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.

 

[Conservative65]

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?

First, the status of the vacuum cleaner is irrelevant. You mentioned that as if it did.

Secondly, all that matters is the thief chose to steal.

You keep making it out as if the value of something determines whether someone is a thief.

 

[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.

Since whatever someone my choose to steal doesn't belong to them, if they have it in their possession they are in the process of a robbery.

 

[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.

 

[Conservative65]

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.

It's an OPEN forum you dumb piece of shit.

Run away bitch.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

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"?

Too right. If legally justified firing on someone you're justified to kill. There's no legal provision for firing a weapon at someone's car or otherwise not using deadly force against a hostile actor. This kind of tv-influenced reaction needs to be squashed like a bug.

 

[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?

 

[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!.

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.

 

[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!.

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.