Don't Steal From Rural Stores: 6 Customers Draw On Tool Thieves, Shots Fired

originally posted by: face23785
The desperation to somehow turn this around where the criminals are the victim is staggering.

Point that out please. I was pointing out tactical mistakes on the part of the citizens. Criminals should be brought to justice, but poor decision making from all parties was demonstrated here.

All because we can't admit guns have legitimate good uses.

Who in this thread doesn't admit that?

I can't imagine being that sheltered and ignorant.

Who is sheltered and ignorant? I carry a firearm everywhere I go. Whether on my property or in public, I have a firearm on me. What I also have is a good understanding of the laws and legal issues surrounding the use of that firearm.

Yeah, let's just leave it to the cops, who aren't there until after you're dead.

That's their job. I have a wife and unborn daughter who depend on me. In today's world of drug addicts and mentally ill persons, I'm not going to take the risk of jumping in front of a car to prevent a petty theft. Not worth dying over someone else's stuff. I'd be a good witness. I'd write down the vehicle description, tag number, and a good description of the suspects.

I damn sure wouldn't fire rounds at tires in a parking lot. I practice shooting regularly and shoot thousands of rounds a year. All it takes is one stray round and I could be imprisoned or bankrupt.

Every bullet you fire has a lawyer attached to it.

a reply to: cynicalheathen

I do not care when it became a robbery, the citizens LAWFULLY detained the thieves who then possibly committed assault with a deadly weapon and or attempted murder. One of them allegedly said run him over, and then hit him with the car. Whether you would do what these men did or not is irrelevant, you are not the perfect moral compass to be worshiped by all. There is no problem in detaining thieves, thieves can not run people over because they want to get away. If they try, I personally have no problems with deadly force being wielded against them. No one should be shot for stealing a nail gun, running someone over with a car has nothing to do with stealing a nail gun.

originally posted by: cynicalheathen
That's their job.

As we recently found out during a mass shooter event it is not their job to save you.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: cynicalheathen

I do not care when it became a robbery, the citizens LAWFULLY detained the thieves who then possibly committed assault with a deadly weapon and or attempted murder.

By pulling a weapon and threatening deadly force for a petty theft. Prior to the criminals driving the car towards him, the armed citizen had absolutely NO justification to use deadly force and therefore NO reason to pull his gun. He in fact, escalated the situation.

I know for a fact that the two largest law enforcement agencies in my area have a policy that states that officers are not authorized to draw their weapons unless deadly force is authorized.

Detaining subjects who stole nail guns doesn't meet that standard.

One of them allegedly said run him over, and then hit him with the car.

Was that after the citizen threatened the use of deadly force without justification for it? A good lawyer will get the assault and attempted murder dropped.

Whether you would do what these men did or not is irrelevant, you are not the perfect moral compass to be worshiped by all.

No, I'm not. But I won't get hemmed up in court for an unjustified shooting.

There is no problem in detaining thieves, thieves can not run people over because they want to get away. If they try, I personally have no problems with deadly force being wielded against them. No one should be shot for stealing a nail gun, running someone over with a car has nothing to do with stealing a nail gun.

How about not putting yourself in a bad situation to begin with? Tactics dictate that it would be much safer to stand to the side of a car.

As we recently found out during a mass shooter event it is not their job to save you.

I was talking about investigating the theft and apprehending the suspects mentioned in the article. Was there a mass shooting mentioned in the article that I missed? I mean, other than the citizens firing needlessly.

a reply to: cynicalheathen

I have to agree with this argument, no matter how unpopular it may be here. This whole fiasco was unnecessary and put a lot of lives at risk. What if someone fired at the perp's tire and missed? Maybe they hit a little girl on a bike behind the whole situation?

I only bring that up because that exact thing happened in front of my house about 3 years ago. A 4-year-old girl on her bike was hit by a stray bullet.

It's tool theft. Let the police and the insurance companies do their jobs. Nobody needs to bring in deadly weapons. Nobody was in danger due to the theft, only people who threw themselves into danger... For tool theft... Think about that.

originally posted by: Im2keul
a reply to: Carcharadon

I would agree if the two suspects did something more than shoplifting.
Seems like just a couple dumb kids and petty theft, for what,/ Christmas? Drugs?
Hopefully this scared the crap out of them enough to never try such a thing again.

You did read the story right? Did you miss the part where the suspects hit someone with a car?

a reply to: sine.nomine

False. It stopped being tool theft when they said "run him over" and then hit him with the car.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
As we recently found out during a mass shooter event it is not their job to save you.

You have that right. Google Gonzalas vs Castle Rock. The Court stated that the Police have no obligation to protect an individual, their obligation is to protect Society as a whole.

How about we stop making excuses for people who commit crimes? The blame is solely on the clowns who were stealing the tools. That's it plain and simple.

I had an armed security certification for 20 years. I quit a job once when I was told that my job was not to prevent theft, but to just to be a deterrent.

I also got fired from a job where a guy trying to rob the store I was working in (not as a guard) pulled a knife on me and I pulled a gun. The store dropped the charges on the guy. Six weeks later he robbed the same store and raped the girl who replaced me.

a reply to: cynicalheathen

Again, you are 100% wrong. Depending on the state and laws you are 100% justified to pull your sidearm out during the commission of a felony. Regardless of what you want to believe, these criminals can not hit someone with their car just because they want to escape. No shots were fired until after they hit someone with the car. I do not know the laws where this story took place but the police in the story did not seem to have a problem with the citizens pulling their guns, and did not even say the firing was illegal.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Death penalty for that imo.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Per the laws of my state (Alabama):

13A-3-26

"A person is justified in using physical force, other than deadly physical force, upon another person when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission by the other person of theft or criminal mischief with respect to property other than premises as defined in Section 13A-3-20."

Definitions (per 13A-3-20):

Force: Physical action or threat against another, including confinement.

Deadly Physical force: Force which, under the circumstances in which it is used, is readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury.

Drawing and pointing a gun is making a threat with a tool which is capable of causing death or serious physical injury, i.e. deadly physical force.

Again, the policies of my local law enforcement do not authorize officers to draw their weapons unless they reasonably believe that they may be necessary to defend against imminent deadly force.

How is theft of property a threat? Again, the private citizen drew his gun, which would lead a reasonable person to believe that he intended to use deadly physical force prior to the suspects driving towards him. Under the laws of my state, the private citizen was not justified in doing so. Prior to having some random guy jump in front of their car and draw a gun on them, is there any evidence that the thieves intended to hurt anyone?

The private citizen unnecessarily escalated things. The criminals were not right or justified in running into him, but they could easily make the argument in court that they didn't know why this crazy guy pointed a gun at them, so they were scared and tried to get away. All it takes is one juror to believe it.

The other private citizens who fired would have been justified, but keep this in mind:

13A-3-21(b)

Danger to innocent persons. If a person is justified or excused in using force against a person, but he recklessly or negligently injures or creates a substantial injury to another person, the justifications afforded by this article are unavailable in a prosecution for such recklessness or negligence.

In short, even though they would be justified in the original shooting, they are still responsible for each bullet they fire. If a ricochet occurred and killed little Susie, good intentions mean squat. They'd be arrested and sued.

Also, just because you shoot tires out or shoot the driver doesn't mean the car magically stops. It's just as likely that the driver stomps the gas and plows a crowd of people. Too many variables.

So again, why inject yourself into a situation which puts you, the private citizen at great risk, for less money than the company likely loses from employee theft in a week?

Thief's must be really stupid if they don't know the area they are in has plenty of people packing....the risk they are taking rising exponentially.

a reply to: Alien Abduct
As has been stated repeatedly, they escalated the situation by pulling out their weapons. The 6 "heroes" were not in danger till they surrounded the car with guns in hand. The situation did not warrant such actions in my opinion.

Using a gun against another human being poses great legal risk even when you can justifiably argue self defense. But when you're trying to stop a crime or defend a third party, the risks grow exponentially. This is not to say you should avoid acting in such situations. However, you need to understand how easy it is to make a bad situation worse and how overwhelming the legal risk is for you.

link

But hey, whatever works for you.

People do these actions to stop criminals because they are tired of crime. Some people actually care.

a reply to: infolurker

I've been stabbed, three times over the years. If I can avoid it, there'll never be a fourth time. It frickin' hurts!! A lot!!

One of the reasons I have a concealed carry permit.

a reply to: dubiousatworst

Exactly.

That's how I was taught. It's also why I try to talk my way out of trouble first, and second. But once a weapon makes its appearance, all bets are off.

In this instance? My weapon wouldn't have left it's holster. There was no, from what I can tell, immediate danger. The thief was not attacking, quite the opposite, in point of fact.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Maybe. I wasn't there. But it sounds like the guy in front of the car put himself there and drew a firearm. If the other five people waited until he got hit, then that's fine.

ETA: If someone pointed a gun at me in front of my car, I'd probably hit him too. I probably wouldn't have just stolen a bunch of stuff though, so there is that. But most people would admit that's an excess of force. What if a cop did that, and fired. Would your opinion change?

Buisiness owners should be given guns as a means to defend it, i mean its america so i dont see it outside the realm of possibility.

a reply to: sine.nomine

No one fired until they hit someone with a car. I have no problem with someone preventing a criminal from fleeing and no problem shooting someone who hits them with a car.

Lots of people have a soft heart for criminals. That's a big part of the problem.