• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Would you have opened fire in this situation? Armed Shopper Opens Fire at Walgreens.

thebigsd

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Messages
3,539
Location
Quarryville, PA
Really not enough information to say either way. If he shot at them because they hit his car then no. If he shot at them because someone was in danger of imminent death or bodily harm then maybe. From the news story it sounds like they were fleeing when he shot at them...
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
The information is scant, but based solely on what we know from the story, NO.

The threat was ended. Firing on the escaping car was high-risk, near-zero-reward. One has to wonder why the shopper fired on the car. Was she stopping an imminent threat? Was she angry? Was she exacting retribution? The first would be legal, but is unlikely. The last two are illegal in almost every jurisdiction. I will leave it to the folks in Florida to discuss whether or not their laws allow citizens to use deadly force on fleeing felons. I doubt it does.
 

SFCRetired

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
1,754
Location
Montgomery, Alabama, USA
Confusing story. The first paragraph labels them as "armed robbers". Then it makes them sound like they were just common shoplifters.

If they were, in fact, armed robbers, the shooting would probably be justified as stopping a fleeing felon, but IANAL. I wouldn't take the shot.

If they were just shoplifters who fled and happened to hit his car, he was not justified in shooting. Now, if he happened to be standing by his car and thought they were trying to run him down, that is another situati
 

We-the-People

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2009
Messages
2,222
Location
White City, Oregon, USA
Perhaps the fact that there wre three armed men and after they got into their car they hit THREE cars had just a tinsy bit of influence?

It's a poorly written story, sparse on details, hard to read to to errors in the use of the English language, and simply not enough to go on.
 

45acpForMe

Newbie
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
2,805
Location
Yorktown, Virginia, USA
Agreed, scant information makes it hard to say any shot was appropriate.

I was very surprised that the article didn't lambast the shooter. It almost sounds like they were patting the shooter on the back for taking his best shot at the fleeing shoplifters.

I would think if the shooter was arrested by police the article would say something.
 

RetiredOC

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Messages
1,567
Shoplifting shampoo and a bag of M&Ms? well.....F*#&ING KILL THEM!!!!!! lol

all jokes aside we don't know if we was heading to his vehicle and maybe they drove toward him, hence they HIT HIS CAR. we really don't know. I don't want to make up stories to defend them just in case they were in the wrong. Seeing as we are led to believe they were driving away, nah I wouldn't have shot. Am I glad someone did? Sure, I'm totally down for armed criminals who put peoples lives in danger getting blown away, it's just in most places in this country that is illegal and I'm not going to jail for shooting someone in a non life/death situation. A firearm is our LAST RESORT to saving ourselves from threat of life or bodily injury.

In summation, running out chasing the criminals as if you were the cop when the threat has ended and your life/body are not in harms way does not justify the shooting.
 

chcknhawk

New member
Joined
Aug 5, 2011
Messages
8
Location
Central Texas
The story is very vague. What pops out at me is the phrase "pair of armed bandits". Depending on the situation, I may or may not have shot at them. However, if I knew them to be armed, I may have tried to disable the car to buy time for police to arrive.
 

sraacke

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2008
Messages
1,216
Location
Saint Gabriel, Louisiana, USA
No I would not have fired. The robbers left the store. There is no reason for a customer to pursue and fire on them. Call 911, give a detailed discription to the police and let them make the arrest.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,331
Location
Valhalla
No I would not have fired. The robbers left the store. There is no reason for a customer to pursue and fire on them. Call 911, give a detailed discription to the police and let them make the arrest.

I'm not in the jury pool, so no answer would be appropriate - details too scant anyway.
 

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,957
Location
Gone
Lousy reporting. Short on details... with the exception of 'armed'. That's a felony... and it's legit to shoot at 'armed' fleeing felons. ('Been there, done that... got the t-shirt) The legal reasoning being that such are a direct threat to the public. Unk if the 'citizen' hit 'em... or what calibre gun it was. The citizen didn't get arrested so it seems to have been a good shoot.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,525
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Was the citizen arrested? Enough said.

It doesn't matter what we think. If the Officers on sean think it was justified then who am I to say other wise when all I have is just a few sentences.

I don't think that the officers on the scene necessarily get it right. As a matter of fact, in the only interactions I have had with officers on the scene, they were decidedly wrong.

Don't ever rely on LEOs to know the law. Some do. Too many don't.
 

Orion

Regular Member
Joined
May 1, 2011
Messages
108
Location
Detroit
Story is very short on details. From what is written, no, I would not take the shot.
 

azpilot

New member
Joined
Aug 9, 2011
Messages
6
Location
Maricopa, AZ
Woohoo first post...

Based on that information alone.. No

He hit a car, that wouldn't have put me in any type of situation that would have threatened my life.
 

SovereignAxe

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
795
Location
Elizabethton, TN
based on the information given in the story, no. Nobody's life was in danger, and like someone said, to kill someone over some shampoo and m&ms? The most valuable thing in a Walgreen's is probably either the electric toothbrushes or the high dollar perfume.

If I knew that they'd held up the place or had done something violent in the store, it would be a different story. But no, I'm not going to shoot someone over shoplifting.
 

frommycolddeadhands

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
451
Location
Knob Noster, MO
What were they trying to shoplift from Walgreens, Pez dispensers?!

And apparently whatever they decided to shoplift required 2 armed men and a getaway car....and smashing into 3 other cars in a panicked escape? That's the most dramatic shoplifting incident I've ever heard of.

Sounds more like a botched armed robbery.
 

ColeMD17

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2011
Messages
68
Location
CdA, Idaho
Yeah, I'm gonna agree with most people here. Not enough details, but I most likely would not have taken the shot, unless they had done something violent in the store.

It would suck that they get to steal stuff, damage my car, and just drive off-and I get stuck with the burden of having to repair my vehicle... but still not justification to shoot. (let's be honest with ourselves, these guys aren't getting caught. Not for this, anyway.)

Although.... a few bullet holes in the trunk, or a shot out tire DOES make it easier for the cops to pick them out and catch them.... Not that that's a reason to justify a shooting but still, it's something to think about. should you be able to deploy a firearm as a tool for that purpose if you reasonably judged that you could do so without causing undue risk to human life?
 

okboomer

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2009
Messages
1,164
Location
Oklahoma, USA
Yeah, I'm gonna agree with most people here. Not enough details, but I most likely would not have taken the shot, unless they had done something violent in the store.

Hi Cole, it is my understanding that the shooter was outside and did not see what had transpired inside - still not enough info to take the shot, here too. :lol:

It would suck that they get to steal stuff, damage my car, and just drive off-and I get stuck with the burden of having to repair my vehicle... but still not justification to shoot. (let's be honest with ourselves, these guys aren't getting caught. Not for this, anyway.)

Cole, some of this depends on what your states' Citizen's Right to Arrest statute sets forth. In most states, a citizen has the right to arrest under certain circumstances and also the right to use deadly force ... but it is a very narrowly defined set and you might want to look up the statute for your state and see what limitations you have.

<snip some stuff> should you be able to deploy a firearm as a tool for that purpose if you reasonably judged that you could do so without causing undue risk to human life?

No! Absolutely not under any state law for civilian carry at this time. Not even law enforcement can do this without very compelling RAS.

Now, as a goal to legislation and normalizing the uses for handguns, that is something that might be looked into for the future ... but, let me ask you this ... how many folks do you know that you would want to be able to do this whenever they thought it a good idea? It is a bit of a slippery slope and there are pros and cons that I am not sure just any 'joe citizen' should be making that decision when it might affect my life. OK, it's a BIG slippery slope :banana:
 
Top