Michigan woman with concealed carry permit opens fire at alleged Home Depot shoplifters

a reply to: BubbaJoe

The NRA is not what people think and had sold his soul to the profiting gun makers and gun sellers, but when it comes to US no been a Christian nation well, historically those that came here first were very much Christian, but they made sure that people in America were not ruled by a theocracy.

That issue of no been a Christian nation is debatable, Freedom of religion and Religious freedom is actually no far from each others meaning.

When statistically 95% of all Americans who have a religious identity are Christians well that tells you the story and this was a gallop poll from back in 2011.

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: BubbaJoe
a reply to: boymonkey74


Actually our Constitution says a well regulated militia shall not be infringed. The second amendment dudes, forget the part about a well regulated militia, but they damn well support the constitution, especially the 14th amendment.

And other "dudes" have no idea what the terms in the constitution meant at the time they were written. So then they apply 20th and 21st century definitions to it and giggle to themselves about how the pro-2nd crowd ignores what the amendment says.

Pro-tip: we don't, there's just no point in arguing with people like you when you're completely ignorant about the very words you're giggling about

Interesting, there was no giggling going on when I typed that, and somehow, even being completely ignorant, I have studied American History for a very long time. When you decide to stop believing the NRA's revisionist version of history, maybe then a honest conversation can be started. And no the USA is not a Christian nation.

The NRA wasn't around in the 18th century to dictate what terms and words meant to anybody. Actual Constitutional scholars have done that, many of whom don't work for the NRA. Are you a Constitutional scholar? I doubt it, otherwise you wouldn't be ignorant to the concept that words meant different things to the Framers.

I'm perplexed as to how you've studied American history "for a very long time" and yet remain ignorant of the fact (that's what it is, a fact) that the language used in a document that's over 200 years old may not be the same language that's used in 2015.

Whatever anti-gun think tank you're using probably isn't any less biased than the NRA is so bringing them in to it really is moot, all the more so given that I didn't quote anything from them

Who said anything about a Christian nation? Not me. Pretty sure we're talking about the 2nd Amendment and not religion. If you want to discuss the religious principles of the document, probably should make a separate thread for it.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

Muskets: the high powered weapons of the 18th century.

Yet somehow that's glossed over.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: BubbaJoe
a reply to: boymonkey74


Actually our Constitution says a well regulated militia shall not be infringed. The second amendment dudes, forget the part about a well regulated militia, but they damn well support the constitution, especially the 14th amendment.

And other "dudes" have no idea what the terms in the constitution meant at the time they were written. So then they apply 20th and 21st century definitions to it and giggle to themselves about how the pro-2nd crowd ignores what the amendment says.

Pro-tip: we don't, there's just no point in arguing with people like you when you're completely ignorant about the very words you're giggling about

Interesting, there was no giggling going on when I typed that, and somehow, even being completely ignorant, I have studied American History for a very long time. When you decide to stop believing the NRA's revisionist version of history, maybe then a honest conversation can be started. And no the USA is not a Christian nation.

The NRA wasn't around in the 18th century to dictate what terms and words meant to anybody. Actual Constitutional scholars have done that, many of whom don't work for the NRA. Are you a Constitutional scholar? I doubt it, otherwise you wouldn't be ignorant to the concept that words meant different things to the Framers.

I'm perplexed as to how you've studied American history "for a very long time" and yet remain ignorant of the fact (that's what it is, a fact) that the language used in a document that's over 200 years old may not be the same language that's used in 2015.

Whatever anti-gun think tank you're using probably isn't any less biased than the NRA is so bringing them in to it really is moot, all the more so given that I didn't quote anything from them

Who said anything about a Christian nation? Not me. Pretty sure we're talking about the 2nd Amendment and not religion. If you want to discuss the religious principles of the document, probably should make a separate thread for it.

Fortunately for me, I don't need associations or think tanks to form my opinions. I rarely quote anything, and prefer to do my own research. It is nice that you have read enough to post talking points from the NRA, but alas, we have heard them all before. No I am not a Constitutional scholar, but I have about as much faith in them as you most likely do our President, who is a Constitutional scholar.

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: BubbaJoe
a reply to: boymonkey74


Actually our Constitution says a well regulated militia shall not be infringed. The second amendment dudes, forget the part about a well regulated militia, but they damn well support the constitution, especially the 14th amendment.

And other "dudes" have no idea what the terms in the constitution meant at the time they were written. So then they apply 20th and 21st century definitions to it and giggle to themselves about how the pro-2nd crowd ignores what the amendment says.

Pro-tip: we don't, there's just no point in arguing with people like you when you're completely ignorant about the very words you're giggling about

Interesting, there was no giggling going on when I typed that, and somehow, even being completely ignorant, I have studied American History for a very long time. When you decide to stop believing the NRA's revisionist version of history, maybe then a honest conversation can be started. And no the USA is not a Christian nation.

The NRA wasn't around in the 18th century to dictate what terms and words meant to anybody. Actual Constitutional scholars have done that, many of whom don't work for the NRA. Are you a Constitutional scholar? I doubt it, otherwise you wouldn't be ignorant to the concept that words meant different things to the Framers.

I'm perplexed as to how you've studied American history "for a very long time" and yet remain ignorant of the fact (that's what it is, a fact) that the language used in a document that's over 200 years old may not be the same language that's used in 2015.

Whatever anti-gun think tank you're using probably isn't any less biased than the NRA is so bringing them in to it really is moot, all the more so given that I didn't quote anything from them

Who said anything about a Christian nation? Not me. Pretty sure we're talking about the 2nd Amendment and not religion. If you want to discuss the religious principles of the document, probably should make a separate thread for it.

Fortunately for me, I don't need associations or think tanks to form my opinions. I rarely quote anything, and prefer to do my own research. It is nice that you have read enough to post talking points from the NRA, but alas, we have heard them all before. No I am not a Constitutional scholar, but I have about as much faith in them as you most likely do our President, who is a Constitutional scholar.

Keep banging that NRA drum buddy. Maybe if you repeat it often enough it'll be true.

Plot twist: I'm not now nor have I ever been a member of the NRA. Though I did shoot on their range a few times up in Virginia. Very nice facility. Shockingly, not one employee tried to hand me a pamphlet or a membership card!

When you can come up with something other than repeatedly trying to play the NRA card, perhaps we can discuss. Till then, no thanks.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: Bluntone22

Yeah...from that "expert" article:

“In that situation personally, there’s no way I would be shooting my gun,” said another instructor, Dawn Martin, with the Kalamazoo-based Viper Security Enforcement Inc.

CPL holders who misuse their guns could face a wide range of charges — among them felony firearm, reckless use of a firearm and felonious assault.

Yep, you misuse you lose it. She may be charged with other things and pay the price for actions. As should be.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: BubbaJoe
a reply to: boymonkey74


Actually our Constitution says a well regulated militia shall not be infringed. The second amendment dudes, forget the part about a well regulated militia, but they damn well support the constitution, especially the 14th amendment.

And other "dudes" have no idea what the terms in the constitution meant at the time they were written. So then they apply 20th and 21st century definitions to it and giggle to themselves about how the pro-2nd crowd ignores what the amendment says.

Pro-tip: we don't, there's just no point in arguing with people like you when you're completely ignorant about the very words you're giggling about

Interesting, there was no giggling going on when I typed that, and somehow, even being completely ignorant, I have studied American History for a very long time. When you decide to stop believing the NRA's revisionist version of history, maybe then a honest conversation can be started. And no the USA is not a Christian nation.

The NRA wasn't around in the 18th century to dictate what terms and words meant to anybody. Actual Constitutional scholars have done that, many of whom don't work for the NRA. Are you a Constitutional scholar? I doubt it, otherwise you wouldn't be ignorant to the concept that words meant different things to the Framers.

I'm perplexed as to how you've studied American history "for a very long time" and yet remain ignorant of the fact (that's what it is, a fact) that the language used in a document that's over 200 years old may not be the same language that's used in 2015.

Whatever anti-gun think tank you're using probably isn't any less biased than the NRA is so bringing them in to it really is moot, all the more so given that I didn't quote anything from them

Who said anything about a Christian nation? Not me. Pretty sure we're talking about the 2nd Amendment and not religion. If you want to discuss the religious principles of the document, probably should make a separate thread for it.

Something is wrong in the world and it may truely be the end is near. This is twice in two days that shamrock and I have agreed. Everyone look for that end times comet to hit.

This is the bad side of the hero mentality that many gun owners profess to have. You know, "if someone with a CCW were present, such and such situation wouldn't have happened!" Those types of people. Someone gets it into their head that they're John Wayne and start shooting the place up for misdemeanors making the whole situation MUCH worse.

If you are going to support such mentalities, you NEED to be careful about the reasons you draw your weapon. This is why they created things such as the Rules of Engagement for US Soldiers. Life isn't Hollywood, where you can just pull out a gun and just start wildly shooting because they are acting up.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
Trying to kill someone for shoplifting....
I for one think this is wrong.
Arrest and fine or jail but no one should be shot for shoplifting.

Havent you heard? The solution for all problems is to just shoot it

originally posted by: murphy22
Don't know the full story. But I'm not sure what the problem is. If nothing else? She was protecting her purchasing power at Home Depot. If it takes a "village" to raise children? Why not a "village" to protect it? If nothing else? There's a car out there with a bullet hole that the "cops" should be looking for. If not and this keeps up? It's going to get awful polite out there. And cops will be looking for another line of work. What's everyone upset about? She only fired three rounds. A cop would've dumped at least thirteen, over a trafic violation. Because you bucked his/her authority.

If you allow any dip# to open fire for any small reason your going to be on the road to chaos.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: murphy22
Don't know the full story. But I'm not sure what the problem is. If nothing else? She was protecting her purchasing power at Home Depot. If it takes a "village" to raise children? Why not a "village" to protect it? If nothing else? There's a car out there with a bullet hole that the "cops" should be looking for. If not and this keeps up? It's going to get awful polite out there. And cops will be looking for another line of work. What's everyone upset about? She only fired three rounds. A cop would've dumped at least thirteen, over a trafic violation. Because you bucked his/her authority.

If you allow any dip# to open fire for any small reason your going to be on the road to chaos.

We're already on the road to chaos and we don't allow it. It does happen though.

The article doesn't go in to much detail about the circumstances surrounding the event. One thing about the law though, you can use lethal force if you believe you are protecting yourself, your family or property or the life or property of others. If something that happened during that event led her to believe the loss prevention officer was in danger she was well within her right to use force to defend him.

This lady was in the wrong, plain and simple.

Carrying a concealed firearm is both a responsibility and a burden, and it should only be carried because of the very small chance that we may encounter a situation where our life is in jeopardy, and then--and only then--should the thought to draw the weapon and use it against another human being in a public (or private) place every cross one's mind.

Petty theft from a Home Depot is NOT a reason to draw a weapon and fire on a human being in a relatively crowded, public area. As a concealed-carry permit holder (and someone who carries daily), this behavior is unacceptable. This lady should have her permit revoked for such blatant disregard for the safety of others and her poor judgment as to an appropriate time to use such a weapon.

Please note that my opinion is based on the assumption that she and others were not in immediate threat of death or grievous bodily harm from these individuals stealing from the store. The amount of details on this incident is very lacking.

a reply to: ~Lucidity

I am a Michigan licensed carrier. This lady is nuts. No one was in danger, no ones life threatened, they were running AWAY from her and the store.

She had absolutely no right.....and should lose her permit.... Perhaps charged as well. She makes us all look bad.

The logic works as follows:

-Shop lifting does not put anyone's life directly in danger.

-Shooting at shop lifters in a public place puts everyone in the areas' life in danger.

The lady was irresponsible and in error and should be charged.

Concealed carry permit or no, some people are just too stupid to be allowed the ability to project lethal force over a distance.

She could not have been much more wrong. Bet she was using FMJ too....

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
This is the bad side of the hero mentality that many gun owners profess to have. You know, "if someone with a CCW were present, such and such situation wouldn't have happened!" Those types of people.

I think that you're mischaracterizing "those types of people," because a comment like that is generally held for situations like a college classroom getting shot up and those young adults being incapable of defending themselves with a similar weapon because of it being a gun-free zone, or the young female who gets raped on a college campus and has no means of defense because of some arbitrary laws that think denying these adults the right to have a firearm somehow makes any sense.

You claim that "many gun owners profess" to have a hero mentality, and I would argue that this is pure speculation. Maybe many CCDW permit holders who carry concealed firearms might think this way (although I still think that's a massive stretch of a speculation), but your average gun owner simply just likes to go to the range and shoot at targets and maybe keep the gun at home for possible defense against an intruder.

If you are going to support such mentalities, you NEED to be careful about the reasons you draw your weapon. This is why they created things such as the Rules of Engagement for US Soldiers. Life isn't Hollywood, where you can just pull out a gun and just start wildly shooting because they are acting up.

While I agree with this assertion, in this particular instance it was noted that the female who opened fire did so methodically, pausing between each shot in order to (apparently) aim before squeezing the trigger each time--I don't think that this equates to "wildly shooting." I agree that this was not the time, place, nor reason to open fire on a moving target from an unknown distance, but to use this instance to incorrectly characterize "many gun owners" as being of the same mentality as her is ludicrous.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
This is the bad side of the hero mentality that many gun owners profess to have. You know, "if someone with a CCW were present, such and such situation wouldn't have happened!" Those types of people.

I think that you're mischaracterizing "those types of people," because a comment like that is generally held for situations like a college classroom getting shot up and those young adults being incapable of defending themselves with a similar weapon because of it being a gun-free zone, or the young female who gets raped on a college campus and has no means of defense because of some arbitrary laws that think denying these adults the right to have a firearm somehow makes any sense.

You claim that "many gun owners profess" to have a hero mentality, and I would argue that this is pure speculation. Maybe many CCDW permit holders who carry concealed firearms might think this way (although I still think that's a massive stretch of a speculation), but your average gun owner simply just likes to go to the range and shoot at targets and maybe keep the gun at home for possible defense against an intruder.

If you are going to support such mentalities, you NEED to be careful about the reasons you draw your weapon. This is why they created things such as the Rules of Engagement for US Soldiers. Life isn't Hollywood, where you can just pull out a gun and just start wildly shooting because they are acting up.

While I agree with this assertion, in this particular instance it was noted that the female who opened fire did so methodically, pausing between each shot in order to (apparently) aim before squeezing the trigger each time--I don't think that this equates to "wildly shooting." I agree that this was not the time, place, nor reason to open fire on a moving target from an unknown distance, but to use this instance to incorrectly characterize "many gun owners" as being of the same mentality as her is ludicrous.

It's how these people roll. Most anti gun people tend to be the ones telling us making assumptions about any group of people is wrong as is linking the most extreme people of any group to the entire group is wrong, but we see the same hypocrites do it when it pertains to guns and owners. Should be use to it by now. You have to laugh at them is all.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity


Hero? Vigilante? Off-duty or retired cop?

Absolute lunatic who needs to have all of her guns taken away and needs to do some time.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
Michigan woman with concealed carry permit opens fire at alleged Home Depot shoplifters

Police in Auburn Hills, Michigan are investigating whether or not to charge a conceal carry permit holder who opened fire at alleged shoplifters at a Home Depot store.

According to The Detroit News, the 47-year-old woman was watching from the store’s parking lot on Tuesday as a loss prevention officer appeared to be trying to stop a shoplifter. When the suspects tried to flee in a dark SUV, the woman pulled out her concealed 9mm handgun and began shooting.

Erm...they're investigating whether or not to charge? This is just crazy. Seems irresponsible...licensed or not. This should be an interesting one to discuss and follow.

Hero? Vigilante? Off-duty or retired cop?

I'm just glad she didn't hit an innocent bystander or something. Seems she was careful.

According to the station, eyewitnesses who called a local radio station Wednesday said the woman fired three times at the suspect's car, spacing out her shots to take aim.

.
.
.
This incident comes just a couple of weeks after an incident in Warren, a city about 23 miles away, where a 63-year-old man with a concealed pistol permit opened fire and hit a bank robbery suspect.

In both instances, police reportedly said the person with the permit who opened fire cooperated with them afterward.
[Source]

Employees other than those trained to do so aren't even allowed to engage with suspected shoplifters for safety and legal reasons. But a random person in a parking lot can just start shooting? Yeah, where is this all heading?

Expert: Woman shouldn't have fired gun at shoplifter

And experts interviewed Wednesday doubted the shooting could have been justified.

“It’s my worst nightmare as a CPL instructor,” said Doreen Hankins, owner of Detroit Arms, which holds CPL classes. “You have to know the entire situation before you pull that handgun out. And I don’t see that a shoplifter at Home Depot fills any of those criteria.”
.
.
.
To use a concealed weapon in Michigan, a CPL holder needs to think that there is an imminent danger of death, great bodily harm or sexual assault, or think there is a similar danger to someone else, said Rick Ector, a firearms trainer who runs Legally Armed Detroit. He added that a gun is “truly a tool of last resort.”

How could this have been any worse ?? Let's see....shooter is a Christian shooting at a Muslim.....shooter is also drunk......was using her kid's head to support her shooting hand.....shooter was using a mirror to practice her trick shots.....shooter was using a legal fully automatic weapon....and the best for last, the gun she used was purchased at a gun show with no background check......