update on woman who fired at shoplifters in home depot parking lot

taliv · Dec 11, 2015

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...urce=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link

interesting article.

'justice' moved pretty fast on this. shooting occurred oct 6 and she's already sentenced as of wednesday to 18 months probation and loss of ccw. charge was misdemeanor reckless use of handgun.

also interesting was that her lawyer seemed to go beyond the legal defense and defended her publicly by saying we need more people like her. fortunately, the tribune started the piece by more responsibly stating gun experts had slammed her.

and the chicago tribune article also favorably mentioned that the 'good guy with a gun' idea is getting more popular, with CCW licenses going from 4.6m in '07 to 12.8m now, and citing a gallup poll that 56% of people say country would be safer with more. of course they also provide a counterpoint, but the article seemed more than fair

also interesting was that it mentioned she claimed she wasn't shooting at the guy, but rather his tires. apparently, she hit one. impossible to know what she was really aiming at, but who knows?
given the recent supreme court decision i referenced that decided a texas cop shooting at the engine block of a vehicle was not "lethal force" maybe we are seeing the beginning of a trend. i hope not.

4v50 Gary · Dec 11, 2015

Know the laws of your state. Here in Colorado and in CA you can't shoot at a shoplifter. Civilly you're also responsible for every bullet.

Frank Ettin · Dec 11, 2015

taliv said:
...given the recent supreme court decision i referenced that decided a texas cop shooting at the engine block of a vehicle was not "lethal force" maybe we are seeing the beginning of a trend.....

I need to clarify this. There was no such Supreme Court decision.

There was a case, Mullrnix v. Luna (Supreme Court, No14--1143, 2015). It involved a question of qulified immunity for a use of lethal force to terminate a high-speed chase. The Court found that the use of lethal force was reasonable for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, so the officer was protected against a 42 USC 1983 suit. The opinion of the Court didn't suggest that the officer did not use lethal force.

Justice Scalia in a separate, concurring opinion sort of did. But what Justice Scalia actually wrote was (Scalia dissent, slip op., at 2):

...it is conceded that Trooper Mullenix did not shoot to wound or kill the fleeing Leija, nor even to drive Leija’s car off the road, but only to cause the car to stop by destroying its engine. That was a risky enterprise, as the outcome demonstrated; but determining whether it violated the Fourth Amendment requires us to ask, not whether it was reasonable to kill Leija, but whether it was reasonable to shoot at the engine in light of the risk to Leija. It distorts that inquiry, I think, to make the question whether it was reasonable for Mullenix to “apply deadly force.”

chipcom · Dec 11, 2015

4v50 Gary said:
Know the laws of your state. Here in Colorado and in CA you can't shoot at a shoplifter. Civilly you're also responsible for every bullet.

Rather than trying to keep track of the laws of every state, I think it's easier to remember a simple rule of thumb concerning deadly force: unless you or those near you are in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm, deadly force is not justified.

Jim K · Dec 11, 2015

We know that the press will always defend criminals (they create more interest than law-abiding folks), but that woman was wrong, both morally and legally. Had she been under attack, or some other person was being attacked, the situation would have been different, but she should have confined herself to getting a description of the people and/or the car.

The loss to shoplifting in this country is tremendous; some say it adds as much as 10% to the cost of some goods. But using deadly force to stop a shoplifter just isn't justified for anyone, even a police officer.

Jim

daverich4 · Dec 12, 2015

4v50 Gary said:
Know the laws of your state. Here in Colorado and in CA you can't shoot at a shoplifter. Civilly you're also responsible for every bullet.

There are no states where you can shoot someone for shoplifting.

lilguy · Dec 12, 2015

For those few that feel a ccw give you police powers take notice. In Illinois you better be in a real near death experience when you pull the trigger. Our legislature was forced, under court order to, to institute legal carry. A majority of elected officials would not have done it otherwise.

MachIVshooter · Dec 12, 2015

She's a complete fool, and deserves her very lenient sentence.

I could understand a person trying to disable a vehicle to prevent loss of personal property, but getting involved in a shoplifting incident in any way is just stupid. Even something like tripping the fleeing crook could wind up costing you thousands in a civil case.

HankB · Dec 13, 2015

I would not employ my concealed weapon for any reason other than my personal safety or that of someone close to me; I'm not a cop or store "loss prevention" officer, and I am not going to assume the risk of behaving like one.

On the other hand, while I would NOT do what this woman did . . . if she faced a jury trial, she & her lawyer would really, really want me on the jury.

USAF_Vet · Dec 13, 2015

This happened in my state, and I think she got off light. Loss of her CPL and 18 months probation. No jail time, nothing other than standard probation fees, no loss of gun RIGHTS, just the state privilege to carry concealed. She may be able to reapply in the future after her probation is complete. In the meantime, unless restricted from possessing firearms is contingent upon her probation, she can still open carry.

Now if she hurt, killed someone or caused significant property damage, this would be a different story. Still, considering the area, I'm surprised this is all she got.

barnbwt · Dec 13, 2015

"She's a complete fool, and deserves her very lenient sentence."
+1. She is very lucky no one was hurt or killed, here; such lenience would not have been warranted in that case. But this way; no one got hurt, her life is not ruined, shoplifters punished, she's civilly liable for whatever damage she caused (which combined with the criminal probation should be all the life-lesson she ever needs)...everyone wins.

TCB

SimplyChad · Dec 13, 2015

daverich4 said:
There are no states where you can shoot someone for shoplifting.

Tex sec 9.42 assuming you own the business

Frank Ettin · Dec 13, 2015

SimplyChad said:
daverich4 said:

There are no states where you can shoot someone for shoplifting.

Click to expand...

Tex sec 9.42 assuming you own the business

Hogwash!

Even in Texas lethal force may be used to protect property only under narrowly defined circumstances when specific conditions have been satisfied (Texas Penal Code Section 9.42):

DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

gbran · Dec 13, 2015

I've had my CA ccw over 20 years and it does cause me to run "what if" scenarios in my mind. It's hard for me to see my self firing at anybody not directly threatening me or mine. If I owned a store in Texas I still wouldn't shoot a fleeing perp. BTW, I sure like the way Scalia thinks. This woman had no business taking the action she did.

Kaeto · Dec 13, 2015

USAF_Vet said:
This happened in my state, and I think she got off light. Loss of her CPL and 18 months probation. No jail time, nothing other than standard probation fees, no loss of gun RIGHTS, just the state privilege to carry concealed. She may be able to reapply in the future after her probation is complete. In the meantime, unless restricted from possessing firearms is contingent upon her probation, she can still open carry.

Now if she hurt, killed someone or caused significant property damage, this would be a different story. Still, considering the area, I'm surprised this is all she got.

She can reapply 8 years after her probation is completed.

230RN · Dec 13, 2015

"I would not employ my concealed weapon for any reason other than my personal safety or that of someone close to me..."

That's why I'm starting to call mine my "Personal Defense Sidearm."

mgkdrgn · Dec 13, 2015

"defended her publicly by saying we need more people like her"

Hardly ... last time I checked shoplifting was not a capital offense, and personally I'd be very happy without stray rounds zinging through the WalMart parking lots of the world.

fastbolt · Dec 13, 2015

I need to clarify this. There was no such Supreme Court decision.

There was a case, Mullrnix v. Luna (Supreme Court, No14--1143, 2015). It involved a question of qulified immunity for a use of lethal force to terminate a high-speed chase. The Court found that the use of lethal force was reasonable for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, so the officer was protected against a 42 USC 1983 suit. The opinion of the Court didn't suggest that the officer did not use lethal force.

Thanks for the quick clarification on that Frank. I almost spilled my coffee thinking I'd missed some landmark definition by the high court.

Folks, as has been said time and time again, LEARN the laws governing firearms and the use of force in your states, and make sure you really UNDERSTAND what they mean, and how they're applied.

The term 'common sense' isn't necessarily the same thing as 'reasonableness', nor may the actual meaning of the laws necessarily agree with your favored 'instinctive' interpretation.

old lady new shooter · Dec 13, 2015

gbran said:
I've had my CA ccw over 20 years and it does cause me to run "what if" scenarios in my mind. It's hard for me to see my self firing at anybody not directly threatening me or mine. If I owned a store in Texas I still wouldn't shoot a fleeing perp. BTW, I sure like the way Scalia thinks. This woman had no business taking the action she did.

Just curious, what county are you in?

gbran · Dec 13, 2015

Kern County. It's nearly shall-issue. One of or the most prolific in the state.

old lady new shooter · Dec 13, 2015

gbran said:
Kern County. It's nearly shall-issue. One of or the most prolific in the state.

Thanks. Maybe I'll look for a house up there, it would be close enough to drive down here once a month or so if desired. I'm increasingly uncomfortable with no carry licenses being issued down here. I wish the Peruta decision would come down already.

gbran · Dec 13, 2015

There are a lot worse places to be than Bakersfield. Driving distance to almost everywhere. Best of all is the housing costs are better than reasonable. Then of course, there is Tehachapi..... just drop over into the Antelope Valley and jump on 14 all the way to SF Valley.

update on woman who fired at shoplifters in home depot parking lot

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

member

Member.

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

member

Member

Moderator

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads