The 45 lived up to it's reputation though.
Did he even get in a full step?
Did he even get in a full step?
-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
Store Owner Shoots and Kills Shoplifter Walking Out The Door
- Thread starter Barbwire
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2013
- Messages
- 65,889
- Reaction score
- 73,933
He does have the hatchet in his hand. You can see it as he's holding the door and then you can see it hit the ground after he is shot. For whatever that's worth. Not sure why the guy cleared the door way so he could exit if he was so hell bent on him not leaving.
He needed that hatchet to get into college. It's part of the new affirmative action assimilation strategy. If you can demonstrate proficiency with native tools, you gets a bettah deal on the twition.
Im ok with this
Recidivism and his age should be taken into account. If you're a felon and ain't learned by the age of 40 whats right or not then they cant and shouldn't play with others. Way i see it is suicide by assholery
Recidivism and his age should be taken into account. If you're a felon and ain't learned by the age of 40 whats right or not then they cant and shouldn't play with others. Way i see it is suicide by assholery
Maybe his finger slipped since the thief was struggling
Well now that you mention it, if LE is struggling with an armed belligerent....Maybe his finger slipped since the thief was struggling
But they don't have 'surplus' hatchets. Gotta operate.
The best that the store owner can do at this point is say that since the thief had the hatchet IN HIS HAND, with a ready-to-strike grip on it as he tried to leave the store, two ways to justify this shooting existed:
1-- In the course of a lawful citizen's arrest for shoplifting, the offender refused commands to drop the weapon he was brandishing, and the arresting person used deadly force as the minimum level of force necessary to effect the arrest. If the man won't surrender and he's got a deadly weapon in his hands, you pretty much have to choose between letting him go or killing him. Any other action would likely get you chopped with that hatchet. You can't use less-than-lethal force against a man with a hatchet. It's shoot him or let him go.
So, the store owner chose to shoot. Is this justified under the law of torts? Is it justified under the criminal procedure laws? How about the 4th Amendment? 30 years ago SCOTUS ruled that an UNARMED burglar of an unoccupied home could not be shot dead by a cop who was too slow to chase him down on foot and tackle or taze him. But, this guy at the Army-Navy store wasn't unarmed. He was certainly armed.
2-- The store owner feared that any guy crazy and bold enough to just walk into his store and grab a deadly weapon and head out the door with it in his hand PROBABLY has the intention of using it to hack somebody with it very soon. Thus, there seemed (reasonably seemed) to be a danger to the general public if the man was not stopped. Shooting him in the chest was the only way to effectively stop him. Verbal commands didn't work. Grabbing him and trying to hold him manually with physical force didn't work. So.... the pistol did its work. Bad guy became a good guy and safe for the rest of society.
1-- In the course of a lawful citizen's arrest for shoplifting, the offender refused commands to drop the weapon he was brandishing, and the arresting person used deadly force as the minimum level of force necessary to effect the arrest. If the man won't surrender and he's got a deadly weapon in his hands, you pretty much have to choose between letting him go or killing him. Any other action would likely get you chopped with that hatchet. You can't use less-than-lethal force against a man with a hatchet. It's shoot him or let him go.
So, the store owner chose to shoot. Is this justified under the law of torts? Is it justified under the criminal procedure laws? How about the 4th Amendment? 30 years ago SCOTUS ruled that an UNARMED burglar of an unoccupied home could not be shot dead by a cop who was too slow to chase him down on foot and tackle or taze him. But, this guy at the Army-Navy store wasn't unarmed. He was certainly armed.
2-- The store owner feared that any guy crazy and bold enough to just walk into his store and grab a deadly weapon and head out the door with it in his hand PROBABLY has the intention of using it to hack somebody with it very soon. Thus, there seemed (reasonably seemed) to be a danger to the general public if the man was not stopped. Shooting him in the chest was the only way to effectively stop him. Verbal commands didn't work. Grabbing him and trying to hold him manually with physical force didn't work. So.... the pistol did its work. Bad guy became a good guy and safe for the rest of society.
