This is one of those incidents that makes you believe there are those who are just a little too eager to start busting caps. In addition to the criminal charges, the shooter will likely face a civil lawsuit made against her from the accused thief.

Link

I have no love for a thief. She was likely in the wrong but I’d probably hang her jury.

Who other than perhaps their mother does love a thief.

The question we have to ask ourselves is how likely are we to let our emotions lead us to a huge mistake?

Yep, I do know some folks who are likely to make a bad decision along those lines. Like Rick Perry used to say:
Let's not forget that if he wasn't there doing that in the first place, he would not have gotten shot.

Oh she’s in trouble.... big time! Now...had it been her two bottles of booze, on her property, and at night, and if she lived in the great state of Texas, then the way the law reads, she could have dropped’em like a bad habit. Texas Penal Code § 9.42... and 9.41 give her that right. But still, what a mess to have to go thru.

Whether she drew down on the shoplifter because she has Dirty Harry fantasies or possibly thought she was stopping a more serious robbery, deciding to shoot the perp as she ran away sounds like a very bad decision to me. She should be in hot water. If someone chooses to carry and then use their firearm, they should be prepared to deal with consequences of their actions. She’s not a policeman, and shouldn’t take it upon herself to neutralize a petty criminal with possible deadly force IMO..

Nor should the police.....

But yeah, that gal is in trouble.

Agreed, I didn’t mean to imply I think it’s ok for police to put down shoplifters with deadly force either

Gotcha

Would the situation change had the thief been stealing $500, $1000, or $50000? I have not seen any of late information on shoplifting but the last I did see showed a cost to the retail purchaser to be about 30%. I watched a thief steal a couple of men's suits several years ago in a mall. I told the manager who was standing next to me & his response was let him go. We will recoup the cost of what he stole. Never did go back in that retail store>

IMO, it's a problem being made worse by all the news reports showing videos of people stealing and getting away with it. It makes you wonder just how large is the outrageous number of break-ins and robberies that never make the news.

I mean if it was in Dallas, Texas that thief could have walked out the door with a shopping cart filled with $699 worth of merchandise and the police would not be able to arrest said thief. Forget all about even shooting them.

Not that long ago people used to kill each other over all kinds of stuff. Horse thieves were hung and etc. Now you'll do more time for shooting a thief in the arm than you'd get for sexually assaulting a child.

I don't know how in the hell it came to this.

Sometimes I feel as if we've almost reached the point where paying before the leaving a store is optional.

If the individual doing the crime is causing or threatening bodily harm to anyone involved, I’d say deadly force is ok.

If a guy grabs a million dollars and runs away, a shooting in the (unarmed) back by a cop or LTC is never gonna be justified.

I would reward her with keys to the city. Shoot their arse and they wont do it no more.

this attitude is what is wrong with society. Why coddle criminals? Why do you think it is OK to let crime run rampant?

So if the perp gets away he/she is incentivized to do more crimes. We need fewer criminals and more involved people. A safe from crime society is the justification, making criminals out of those who prevent crime does not make society safer.

I think thats a gross over statement Rick. So me saying the lady shouldn’t have opened fire on a fleeing shoplifter makes me pro criminal?

I didn’t say we should let criminals run rampant. I despise thieves as much as anyone, but we’re talking about a specific situation. The point of this thread, if I understand correctly, was to spark discussion on when it’s appropriate for a citizen to fire their carry weapon to stop a crime. And my take based the brief news article was that she probably shouldn’t have fired her weapon. I personally wouldn’t shoot someone for stealing a case of beer from my pickup, nor would I have shot a guy for shoplifting $30 worth of liquor from a store. Maybe I’m wrong, but I would think in that situation the risk of killing the offender over a petty crime or hitting the clerk or a bystander is too great. Obviously, if it had been an armed robbery or violent situation it would be entirely different.

In my opinion she probably made a mistake, but I also don’t think she should suffer major legal consequences, or that she should be sued for damages that will end up in the POS criminal’s back pocket.

I do not have any sympathy for the perpetrator with a bullet in his arm. As already stated here, if he wouldn’t have been committing a crime he wouldn’t have been shot. The article says police still plan on charging him, which is entirely appropriate

Uh.... no.

Instead of the police issuing a speeding ticket, should they shoot the criminal?
Should we shoot someone for walking through our front yard?
TP’ing a house?
What about if a couple guys get in a fistfight downtown? Shoot both of them?

If someone is afraid of bodily harm to themselves or others, I fully support them pulling a gun and using it. Shooting someone in the back, after-the-fact doesn’t make anyone “safer”. Let the cops and courts do their job, John Wayne.

Rickt300, would you change your opinion if it was your property that was being taken?

Sec. 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.

If some Meth Head is stealing your property... say your tractor out of your barn... or your car... AND IT’S AT NIGHT, you are well within the law to use deadly force to keep your property, and not let them leave with it. These are the laws in Texas. Don’t like it... I’m sorry... Don’t steal my stuff. And you don’t need a LTC to do so either. As mentioned above, people used to be hanged for stealing cattle or horses and there weren’t as many thieves. I have no problem with the law.

Now... is it worth it? That’s for you to figure out. You will no doubt be taken down to the station and questioned and have to go to court and it will be a big ol mess I’m sure. Not to mention you just killed someone and will have to live with that for the rest of your life, but if it’s at night you are well within the law.

Sorry... I just realized I replied to you Texas Dan and this post was suppose to be to Tactical Cowboy with his “let the police and courts figure it out John Wayne” comment.

No one is going to change my mind about the original post. Shooting someone in the back as they run away is a poor choice.

Please explain what on earth you are talking about, I don't get what you are saying. Cops in Dallas can't detain thieves?

If I remember correctly, it was either the local DA or police chief who said they would not prosecute people who stole items that cost less than a given amount.

It was the Dallas County D.A. (decide for yourself what that should stand for). He said he wouldn't prosecute homeless people for theft under $750 if they were stealing "essential items", along with criminal trespass and some other things.