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

a reply to: ISawItFirst

It originates with self.

Becoming a citizen with a gun permit is a lot easier than becoming a cop or soldier.

Because self defense is supposed to be just that and nothing else. If somebody is about to violate your right to life there usually isn't time to call 911.

Anyone applying for a gun permit should know this. How do you test for that? You tell me.

a reply to: deadeyedick

And what exactly does a flat tire prove..she missed?..got close?..nailed it? ..which one..lmao
Good f'n thing no bystanders hurt.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: deadeyedick

And what exactly does a flat tire prove..she missed?..got close?..nailed it? ..which one..lmao

It really depends on the event but if she pulled a gun and told the guard I am gonna shoot out the tire and then shoots out the tire then case closed. If she pulls it out and says I am gonna kill that sucka then case closed the other way. It is called intention.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Not buying she had any right or reason to shoot in a public place..it's everything that is wrong with your gun laws..the everyday moron.

a reply to: vonclod
Well as I stated in first post she should be used as a teaching example of what not to do but her actions were legal and unnecessary.

As others have stated the only time to harm in an attempt to detain should be to save others.

a reply to: deadeyedick

I will be very shocked if charges are not filed. Based on the article her actions were unlawful.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

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.

While I appreciate your thoughts on this, the original story did not provide enough information to determine who was in danger and who was not.

Inside or outside doesn't matter if there is a threat of danger. If there was no threat, it still doesn't matter.
The shooter doesn't have to be a security guard. Anyone can defend themselves or anyone else if they are in danger.
Shooting at a vehicle isn't a good idea no matter who you are. "Crowded parking lot." ?
The license does not grant the holder the right to kill but it does grant the holder the ability to defend him/herself and anyone else who might be in danger - using lethal force if necessary.

I understand your objection but my post was quite clear. There must be a threat, a presence of danger, to justify shooting. There is a right way and a wrong way to defend yourself and others in almost any situation. Personally, given the amount of information now available, I think she was wrong. The original article did not provide quite enough information to condemn her actions.

I think her heart was probably in the right place but her actions were poorly chosen. She will probably lose her license as a result. I have no problem with that. If she is convicted of a felony she will lose the right to own firearms altogether. In the absence of a felony conviction she can still own firearms but not carry them. (this information is general in nature - I am not familiar with Michigan law)

If you genuinely believe you, or someone else, is in danger then you should act on that belief unless the law says otherwise. But you should also be prepared to face the consequences of those actions. I couldn't stand by doing nothing if I genuinely believed someone was in danger. Its just in me to do that. But I would spend every spare second I had to be as sure as I possibly could be that I was making the right decision.

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Shamrock6

What does it matter about any assault or not..as I get the story she shot at a moving vehicle..moving away from her?..self defence isn't retroactive is it?

Driving away from her and towards the store LP person would still be assault, and she would still have a legal justification to fire her weapon. "In defense of self or others." Not really that hard to grasp is it?

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: deadeyedick

I will be very shocked if charges are not filed. Based on the article her actions were unlawful.

You could be right but I think intent may carry weight here or at least that is how things used to work.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Here is the issue with intent. Her intent was to stop the shoplifters who branded no weapons and threatened no one else. While fleeing the scene they did not try to hit / kill anyone, including the armed lady or the guy chasing them. The purpose of a firearm is self defense / defense of others and only when that threat is imminent, and per Michigan law is only allowed if retreating from the incident is impossible.

Considering they were fleeing her use of force was disproportionate to the crime at hand.

Who knows.. Prosecutors have made completely illogical decisions before... Maybe she will walk away with a slap on the hand or losing her ccw.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: deadeyedick

Here is the issue with intent. Her intent was to stop the shoplifters who branded no weapons and threatened no one else. While fleeing the scene they did not try to hit / kill anyone, including the armed lady or the guy chasing them. The purpose of a firearm is self defense / defense of others and only when that threat is imminent, and per Michigan law is only allowed if retreating from the incident is impossible.

Considering they were fleeing her use of force was disproportionate to the crime at hand.

Who knows.. Prosecutors have made completely illogical decisions before... Maybe she will walk away with a slap on the hand or losing her ccw.

I think here intent was to shoot the tire and it took a couple shots that were fairly well placed and backs up her intent of flattening.

See you come right out and claim her intent was to stop the thieves but that does not well describe the details of the situation.

If we had a person out there shooting at suspects in a vehicle that is different than aiming for a tire.

a reply to: deadeyedick

No I am explaining how intent works when compared to the law in question. A firearm is a deadly force option and NOT something to shoot out tires with. If that were an acceptable option we would see law enforcement doing it all the time and we don't.

Why you ask?

Because discharging a firearm is a deadly force option, regardless of what she thinks her "intent" is.

a reply to: Xcathdra

That is an opinion.

I shoot many times that does not involve deadly force.

Thinking along those terms leeds to no 2nd.

A gun is a tool and regardless of our opinions intent is the foundation of our laws.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Its not an opinion.. Its called working in the State of Michigan as a law enforcement officer for a few years.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: deadeyedick

No I am explaining how intent works when compared to the law in question. A firearm is a deadly force option and NOT something to shoot out tires with. If that were an acceptable option we would see law enforcement doing it all the time and we don't.

Why you ask?

Because discharging a firearm is a deadly force option, regardless of what she thinks her "intent" is.

I see you were an LEO in MI for a while (a few posts down) and this quote here made me wonder about all of the police shootings. It seems that as an LEO you have been trained that if you draw a gun, it must be a deadly force option in play. That would seem to escalate one's mental state to a position where the weapon is drawn and now the only outcome must be that the LEO with the gun shoot at the perpetrator, with intent to kill. Not disarm, not shoot out a tire but kill.
Does feeling that deadly force must be employed since a gun was drawn make it easier for LEO's to get ahead of the situation and shoot first? I am asking as a non gun owner and wondering why police don't shoot to disarm/disable or stop without deadly force if the possibility is there and risk assessment indicates so?

Interesting how one LEO here says this is bad and not legal, whilst the other says it's all good..go figure, I'll go with "bad"

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: deadeyedick

Its not an opinion.. Its called working in the State of Michigan as a law enforcement officer for a few years.

You cannot put a price on experience.

I really do not even know the details of the case but am just speaking on the shooting of the tire and am basing my comments on what I have grown up with and accepted as law.

Many times I have been told and read about intent and the bearing it has on our justice system. Givin that I am quite sure that thousands of laws exist that are hypocritical to the intent of actions. This should be the smell test we use in our lives as we have tried to in the courts.

originally posted by: vonclod
Interesting how one LEO here says this is bad and not legal, whilst the other says it's all good..go figure, I'll go with "bad"

Perhaps it depends on their age, training and perception/interpretation of the law.
I'm guessing they are both LEOs but operating in totally different environments.

originally posted by: vonclod
Interesting how one LEO here says this is bad and not legal, whilst the other says it's all good..go figure, I'll go with "bad"

Let us be real.

If the lady was an on duty cop then she would be under a much larger amount of scrutiny.

Officers are trained that drawing and firing a weapon while on duty is lethal force and they have to act as such.

However the same is not true for citizens.

a reply to: evc1shop

Law Enforcement is trained that the laws governing law enforcement equates deadly force with a firearm. Law Enforcement is not allowed to fire warning shots and we do not shoot to wound, we shoot to stop the threat. Law Enforcement, unlike civilians, have what can best be described as a 1 plus advantage. It means law enforcement is allowed to escalate one level of force higher than the level of force being used against us to overcome.

In order for law enforcement, in the situation described in the article, to shoot the suspects / shoot at the vehicle in question must be threatening the public at large with an imminent danger of death / serious physical injury. Shoplifting and fleeing in a car does not rise to the level of being able to discharge a firearm in order to "stop" the threat. It does not meet constitutional requirements under the 4th amendment (When law enforcement shoots a person they are in effect seizing that person under the 4th amendment) and it does not meet the requirements established under Tennessee vs. Garner.

Is an officer required to shoot once their weapon is drawn? - Nope. Can an officer shoot out the tires of a vehicle? Depends on the agency and state however the requirement in discharging a firearm remains the same. Use of a firearm by law enforcement does not get differing degrees of use. The law views the use of a firearm as a deadly force encounter, triggering the constitutional / legal requirements established. Does discharging a firearm at a moving vehicle in order to disable meet the departmental policy? Does it meet the states legal requirements? Does it meet Federal requirements?

We cannot shoot to disarm/disable. We shoot to stop the threat. The criteria governing law enforcement and use of a firearm is very strict and defined. If an office feels the person is not a risk to the point of shooting to stopping a threat then the use of a firearm on that individual cannot be justified under the law. Based on the laws in question shooting a person to disarm/disable instead of stopping a threat can be viewed as an excessive use of force.

In the civilian realm the requirements on use of force are less than law enforcement due to training requirements. While a person can use deadly force to protect themselves or others in the state of Michigan, it is a duty to retreat state. It means if the person can remove themselves from the situation they are required to do so. If they have a way out and opt to ignore it and engage they can be charged (in MI the exception is in the home, where the castle doctrine applies).

Did I answer your question?