Woman shoots purse snatcher in the back

What if you kill someone to protect others and what if your stealing food so you can live ?

No excuses for pedophiles but the other two have some gray lines.


However shooting someone who appears unarmed and in a crowded space isn't justified. This girl became a murder to stop a thief and she could have killed an innocent bystander.



a reply to: Gothmog

a reply to: Domo1

She screwed up big time. I am ALL for ccw but he was running away and no longer a threat.. Especially since she is white and the perp was black.
*edit*
Oh I forgot though, in Texas you can use deadly force to protect property. I will watch this one play out. Either way he deserved it. We need no tolerance for uncivilized criminals.

Pcg

a reply to: Domo1

I looked up the news story, the shot missed.

www.dailymail.co.uk...< br />
Pcg

I thought the ATS crowd would be pleased to hear this kind of story!

I wouldn't have shot in the back but I would have definitively shot his ass and doing so is the kind of action that keeps the population in place. The mediatization of this event will indirectly stop a douzen purse snatchers in the area until they forget the story from doing too much drugs.

originally posted by: Athetos
What if you kill someone to protect others and what if your stealing food so you can live ?

No excuses for pedophiles but the other two have some gray lines.


However shooting someone who appears unarmed and in a crowded space isn't justified. This girl became a murder to stop a thief and she could have killed an innocent bystander.



a reply to: Gothmog

There are no "gray lines" . A theft hurts the person. Imagine he stole her purse and got away. Say the purse contained all the money she had. What then ? Grey line mon derrière .

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: TheLotLizard

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: TheLotLizard

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
You gotta be a proper coward to shoot someone in the back...

I mean 110% cowardly.

As cowardly as it gets.

No you dont. In this case the person was stealing a purse...he didnt get away this time.Kudos and cheers go out to her. Lets hope that after this he changes his occupation and outlook on life. Getting shot in the back should have that effect. Unless he is an extremely stupid thug.
Oh , and least we forget, if he was in any of most countries in the ME he gets his hands cut off.

Stealing a purse now equates to death with no jury?

In my state you can't even shoot someone unless they have a gun pointed at you also. This is just an example of just how simple minded some gun owners are, and why everyone is not fit for owning a gun.

If you're a person who thinks theft should be punishable by death, you should probably move back in time when people thought the world was flat and thought the sun was drawn by a chariot across the sky.

To me the worst scum on the face of this earth in order:
1) pedophiles
2) murderers
3) thieves

I care not what happens to any of the 3

Yet If this woman shot a man in the back it would be considered murder. Would she not be stealing his life over a damn purse?

But I'm guessing you would defend her till the end. Great irony right there. I'm glad I live in America, home of the free, land of the Hippocrates.

Yep , you got it right. Lie , cheat , steal you may have to face the ramifications of what evil you do . There is a song with the words "all the things you do,are gonna come back to you"

Wait are you seriously saying what it sounds like you're saying? You would shoot someone for lying cheating or stealing?

originally posted by: ~Lucidity

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: TheLotLizard

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: TheLotLizard

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
You gotta be a proper coward to shoot someone in the back...

I mean 110% cowardly.

As cowardly as it gets.

No you dont. In this case the person was stealing a purse...he didnt get away this time.Kudos and cheers go out to her. Lets hope that after this he changes his occupation and outlook on life. Getting shot in the back should have that effect. Unless he is an extremely stupid thug.
Oh , and least we forget, if he was in any of most countries in the ME he gets his hands cut off.

Stealing a purse now equates to death with no jury?

In my state you can't even shoot someone unless they have a gun pointed at you also. This is just an example of just how simple minded some gun owners are, and why everyone is not fit for owning a gun.

If you're a person who thinks theft should be punishable by death, you should probably move back in time when people thought the world was flat and thought the sun was drawn by a chariot across the sky.

To me the worst scum on the face of this earth in order:
1) pedophiles
2) murderers
3) thieves

I care not what happens to any of the 3

Yet If this woman shot a man in the back it would be considered murder. Would she not be stealing his life over a damn purse?

But I'm guessing you would defend her till the end. Great irony right there. I'm glad I live in America, home of the free, land of the Hippocrates.

Yep , you got it right. Lie , cheat , steal you may have to face the ramifications of what evil you do . There is a song with the words "all the things you do,are gonna come back to you"

Wait are you seriously saying what it sounds like you're saying? You would shoot someone for lying cheating or stealing?

I might , depends on the situation .
Dont mess with my family , my money ,or my health . That would not have a "Cinderella" ending .No , what I was saying his karma caught up to him. Apropos .

originally posted by: pcgamer11
a reply to: Domo1

I looked up the news story, the shot missed.

www.dailymail.co.uk...< br />
Pcg

Thank you for sharing! It does appear that Dawson was not shot in the back. He stumbled and tripped when he heard the shot and others were able to catch and hold him until the authorities arrived.

Another scumbag gets what he deserves. Justice cold and hard. His fault for being a scumbag.

Texas laws are VERY ANTI CRIMINAL. You can shoot someone to protect your property in this state.

It used to be that lethal force was justified to save lives and property. I think we need to go back to the property part.

The majority here seem to put the responsibility on the person with the gun and not the person committing the crime.

The majority here want to blame the woman. They say that a purse isn't worth a life. Don't blame her, blame the guy who stole the purse. If he wouldn't have stolen the purse, he wouldn't have been shot at.

I could never take a life over a purse, however, I have to find a light in this...

Although what she did was not and will never be right by me, maybe...people will not snatch purses anymore?

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: pcgamer11
a reply to: Domo1

I looked up the news story, the shot missed.

www.dailymail.co.uk...< br />
Pcg

Thank you for sharing! It does appear that Dawson was not shot in the back. He stumbled and tripped when he heard the shot and others were able to catch and hold him until the authorities arrived.

Then it appears this story ended as well as it possibly could have. No one killed, but still sends a message to would-be criminals in the area.

In related news, an patron of a Texas Wendy's was killed today by a random bullet fired from some distance away. Police are looking for the shooter.

This isn't real, for the gullible types out there, but seriously - this event did not meet the generally acceptable threshold of "grave and imminent danger" allowing for deployment of lethal force. I know the rules are different in Texas, but how would this woman feel if she killed a kid in that Wendy's parking lot behind the snatcher? Always know your target and what's beyond your target. Both things have to factor into the decision to squeeze.

a reply to: Domo1

Should have had better aim, by the way in Texas defense of persons and property is justifiable use of a firearm, I have shot people for much the same reason.

I am always surprised when so many people take the side of the scumbag, the crook, the criminal.
I need to stop being surprised. I bet this lady was worried about the scumbag attacking and robbing her mom or daughter, or yours. The only non-repeat offender is a died offender. And yes the crook put his life on the line for a bag, so his choice.

People have every right to protect their property at all cost. I'm from Detroit and I'm sick of thieves. If someone is running away with your stuff you have every right to shoot them and get your property back. I have no sympathy for criminals.

a reply to: Metallicus

No trained gun owner would ever shoot someone or even draw their weapon in that situation. She made a grave error in a) drawing her weapon and b) using it after her life was not in imminent danger.

What a totally ridiculous thing to say. Just because someone does some training does not mean they will never make a bad judgement call , lose their temper or decide to ignore what they were told and shoot someone without a solid legal and moral reason to do so.

'Trained' people murder other people with guns all the time in the US.

You have to be a coward to rob an 84 yr old woman. 84 yr old. The topic is inaccurate the guy was not shot. Still everyone is going to defend this POS. 84 yr old.

a reply to: Boadicea

Stuff? Her keys to her house and the exact location of said house? Would you let someone get away with those items?