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

The linked story does not provide enough information for anyone here to decide what should or should not have happened. I have had a CCL in several states for many years. I have taken multiple classes on gun safety. I am such a fan of them I am currently in training to be an instructor myself.

There is a difference between danger and the perception of danger. If you are in danger you have the right to defend yourself. There are right ways and wrong ways to do it. You also have the right to defend someone else if they are in danger. You also have the right to protect your property. But again, there is a right way and a wrong way.

It is important for people here to remember that right and wrong can vary from state to state. In one state where I had a CCL the weapon had to be at least 90% concealed at all times. In another state that would get you arrested.

If this woman just decided she was going to stop shoplifters from robbing a store, she should have her license taken away. If she had reason to believe the shoplifters were armed or that the loss prevention officer was in danger, that is a different story. It wont be hard for law enforcement to determine exactly what she thinks she saw and heard and whether she reacted properly or not.

originally posted by: ISawItFirst

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Just my opinion, some even in authority shouldn't have guns. George Zimmerman, for instance?

Yow can someone who cant be trusted with a weapon be trusted with authority?

Good point. However, we can't tell beforehand how they will react on that day. Training and qualifying don't mean squat, imo.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Except for the fact that Michigan is a duty to retreat state.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
The linked story does not provide enough information for anyone here to decide what should or should not have happened. I have had a CCL in several states for many years. I have taken multiple classes on gun safety. I am such a fan of them I am currently in training to be an instructor myself.

There is a difference between danger and the perception of danger. If you are in danger you have the right to defend yourself. There are right ways and wrong ways to do it. You also have the right to defend someone else if they are in danger. You also have the right to protect your property. But again, there is a right way and a wrong way.

It is important for people here to remember that right and wrong can vary from state to state. In one state where I had a CCL the weapon had to be at least 90% concealed at all times. In another state that would get you arrested.

If this woman just decided she was going to stop shoplifters from robbing a store, she should have her license taken away. If she had reason to believe the shoplifters were armed or that the loss prevention officer was in danger, that is a different story. It wont be hard for law enforcement to determine exactly what she thinks she saw and heard and whether she reacted properly or not.

Sorry but I think you're wrong on this.

The suspected shoplifter was outside of the store & was in no way a threat to the shooter. That's a fact.

The shooter wasn't a security guard at the store but was just another customer. That's a fact.

The shooter shot the suspected shoplifter's car in a crowded parking lot while they were trying to drive away from the scene. That's a fact.

Having a concealed weapons permit does not give its holder the right to kill shoplifters, especially when the permit holder isn't in any danger. That's a fact.

Shoplifting in the US does not carry the death penalty. That's why legislators & judges have created punishments outlined for shoplifting, and those punishments do not include the death penalty. Those are facts.

So it's pretty easy to see that the shooter was in the wrong here. If she used a camera & took a picture of the car & its license plate, it would've been easy for the police to track down the suspect. That would've helped the situation. But shooting into a crowded parking lot is simply the wrong way to handle this situation.

I don't own a gun, nor do i choose to. Im all for gun rights, but this lady should be charged. While her intentions may have been just, SHE can not use that gun for anything but protection of life, hers or someone else's and then only in exigant circumstances.

This paints gun carriers as loose cannons and this is exactly what people are affraid of in the whole gun, no gun debates.

What an idiot she proved herself to be. If we expect our officers to act with control in these kinds of situations, we must expect that of ourselves as well.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

a reply to: Invasion2007

I find it odd how the (relatively very few) news stations and papers that have covered this go so out of the way to make sure to mention that she had a CCW permit but don't focus on how this was an illegal act.

Attempted murder or some kind of endangerment at the felony level is the least she should get in my mind.

Seriously? Shoot to kill someone for some "things" of some monetary value to a store or bank? They have both insurance and their own security for those things.

She's a criminal.

IMHO, and that's all it is, she's an idiot.

Unless her life was in immediate danger, her weapon should have stayed holstered/handbagged.

At the least, she should be brought up on reckless endangerment. Attempted murder is on the table, I'm sure. Depending upon the DA/grand jury, I suppose.

In any case, not the brightest thing to do.

a reply to: seagull

bs
she done nothing illegal

a reply to: deadeyedick

Oh yes she did.. Otherwise whats to stop anyone with CCW from being judge Dread out there?

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: seagull

bs
she done nothing illegal

Michigan SELF-DEFENSE ACT (EXCERPT) Act 309 of 2006

THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT) Act 328 of 1931

Assault with Intent to Kill

Short of an actual Murder or Manslaughter charge, Assault With Intent to Murder charges are about as serious as it gets in Michigan. The Michigan Assault With Intent to Commit Murder law, MCL 750.83, says:

“Any person who shall assault another with intent to commit the crime of murder, shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison for life or any number of years.”

The At an AWIM trial, the Prosecution must prove an assault including all of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, that you tried to physically injure another person.

Second, that when you committed the Assault, you had the ability to cause an injury, or at least believed that you had the ability.

Third, that you had the specific intent to KILL the person, and the circumstances did not legally excuse or reduce the crime (i.e. Self-Defense). It is NOT enough to show you merely intended to cause great bodily harm (the standard for Assault With Intent to do Great Bodily Harm in Michigan), or a wanton and willful disregard of the likelihood that the natural tendency of an action is to cause death or great bodily harm (the Standard for Second Degree Murder in Michigan).

We don't aim at people unless we intend to kill, right?

a reply to: deadeyedick

She shot at a moving vehicle, with people in it. She isn't a LEO, is she? If not, and she wasn't in physical danger, what she did is illegal.

Sounds like the guards in Oblivion. If you even accidentally pick something up and refuse to pay a fine or go to jail the only other option is defend yourself from being murdered.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: deadeyedick

She shot at a moving vehicle, with people in it. She isn't a LEO, is she? If not, and she wasn't in physical danger, what she did is illegal.

Even if she were a LEO she would still be in serious trouble. Based on the article there is absolutely nothing present to justify discharging a firearm at the individuals / vehicle.

The only thing that allows LEO's to shoot at a person fleeing is if they can clearly articulate the persons is an immediate / imminent threat to the public at large. While the standard for a civilian is less than a LEO, in the state of Michigan she is still not meeting the requirements.

Shoplifting and running away doesn't even come close.

originally posted by: Invasion2007
I don't own a gun, nor do i choose to. Im all for gun rights, but this lady should be charged. While her intentions may have been just, SHE can not use that gun for anything but protection of life, hers or someone else's and then only in exigant circumstances.

This paints gun carriers as loose cannons and this is exactly what people are affraid of in the whole gun, no gun debates.

What an idiot she proved herself to be. If we expect our officers to act with control in these kinds of situations, we must expect that of ourselves as well.

Being completely honest in this day and age not even sure that I would use it to help a stranger out. The legal look over, gun sensitivities, etc. Self and family definately with a sexual assault ( even stranger) running close third. Even then really have to do some thinking if it's worth helping others in that manner.

I'm beginning to wonder if this was some sort of setup. There's nothing I can find following up on this story. No followup. Maybe I just can't find it, but...

a reply to: enlightenedservant
Intent is the whole of the law.

If her intention was to shoot the tire.

One would have to prove that she intended to harm anyone and beyond that they may get unlawful discharge if they are mad at her.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: deadeyedick

She shot at a moving vehicle, with people in it. She isn't a LEO, is she? If not, and she wasn't in physical danger, what she did is illegal.

No it was legal unless she intended to harm someone.

Citizens can legally arrest people.

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: deadeyedick

She shot at a moving vehicle, with people in it. She isn't a LEO, is she? If not, and she wasn't in physical danger, what she did is illegal.

No it was legal unless she intended to harm someone.

Citizens can legally arrest people.

Shooting at someone is intending to harm someone. There's no discussion there.

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: deadeyedick

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: deadeyedick

She shot at a moving vehicle, with people in it. She isn't a LEO, is she? If not, and she wasn't in physical danger, what she did is illegal.

No it was legal unless she intended to harm someone.

Citizens can legally arrest people.

Shooting at someone is intending to harm someone. There's no discussion there.

No it is not and that is why there will be no charges for her.


It maybe different if the outcome was not a flat tire.

originally posted by: intrptr

originally posted by: ISawItFirst

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Just my opinion, some even in authority shouldn't have guns. George Zimmerman, for instance?

Yow can someone who cant be trusted with a weapon be trusted with authority?

Good point. However, we can't tell beforehand how they will react on that day. Training and qualifying don't mean squat, imo.

Perhaps we should explore that more, before traveling down the same tired and divisive roads this usually leads to.

Training and qualifying being insufficient, what then are proper criteria for the bestowal of authority? From where does it originate?