'Shooter' who flattened tire of fleeing shoplifters' car

[Hmac]

Should she have endangered others? Of course not. Did she endanger others? Maybe.

If someone shoots at your car while you're driving it, would you consider that that endangers you?

[Holland&Holland]

Should she have endangered others? Of course not. Did she endanger others? Maybe.

If someone shoots at your car while you're driving it, would you consider that that endangers you?

Others is not the driver of the car.

[Hmac]

Should she have endangered others? Of course not. Did she endanger others? Maybe.

If someone shoots at your car while you're driving it, would you consider that that endangers you?

Others is not the driver of the car.

She endangered the life of the driver of the car. He had been convicted of nothing, not even charged with anything. He's driving away and someone yell's "he's a shoplifter" and she starts blasting away putting his life in danger. What is she, Judge Dredd?

She's an idiot who must have fallen asleep in her carry permit course and she's lucky she didn't hit the guy or she'd likely be looking at a different set of charges, maybe manslaughter. Not to mention the civil liability - that shoplifter could sue her *** off and he'd win.

As a corollary, I'd be pissed if I came out of Home Depot and found a bullet hole in my car from some idiot vigilante throwing random bullets around the parking lot.

[xd ED]

It's pretty clear what happened and why.

Anyone defending her actions, particularly someone who might, on occasion carry a firearm, should sit down and have a long talk with themselves, and find a new instructor.

As an aside, she now appears to have taken on the role of martyr:

(The shooter Tatiana) Duva-Rodriguez did not contest the charge in court, but she was hardly contrite. "I tried to help," she told WJBK television after her sentencing, before wryly adding: "And I learned my lesson that I will never help anybody again."

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2015/12/woman_who_shot_at_home_depot_s.html

[jdege]

Should she have endangered others? Of course not. Did she endanger others? Maybe.

If someone shoots at your car while you're driving it, would you consider that that endangers you?

Like I said, it depends upon the angles. She was shooting at the tire. Was the driver in the line of fire? Was anyone else in the line of fire? I don't know, you don't know.

[xd ED]

Should she have endangered others? Of course not. Did she endanger others? Maybe.

If someone shoots at your car while you're driving it, would you consider that that endangers you?

Like I said, it depends upon the angles. She was shooting at the tire. Was the driver in the line of fire? Was anyone else in the line of fire? I don't know, you don't know.

To quote Hillary:"What difference does it make?"


Describe the scenario where shooting at anything, anywhere to stop a shoplifter is justified.
If you view the news video in the above link I posted, you'll see the security video of a crowded parking lot.

[Holland&Holland]

She endangered the life of the driver of the car. He had been convicted of nothing, not even charged with anything. He's driving away and someone yell's "he's a shoplifter" and she starts blasting away putting his life in danger. What is she, Judge Dredd?

She's an idiot who must have fallen asleep in her carry permit course and she's lucky she didn't hit the guy or she'd likely be looking at a different set of charges, maybe manslaughter. Not to mention the civil liability - that shoplifter could sue her *** off and he'd win.

As a corollary, I'd be pissed if I came out of Home Depot and found a bullet hole in my car from some idiot vigilante throwing random bullets around the parking lot.

Did I state she did not endanger the driver? No.

I like how you read into my words other words that are not there.

[Hmac]

Should she have endangered others? Of course not. Did she endanger others? Maybe.

If someone shoots at your car while you're driving it, would you consider that that endangers you?

Like I said, it depends upon the angles. She was shooting at the tire. Was the driver in the line of fire? Was anyone else in the line of fire? I don't know, you don't know.

What worries me, and should worry everybody who is concerned that permit-holder vigilantes may further put gun rights at risk for the rest of us, is that there are people in this thread who seem to believe that launching bullets (read "lethal force") in the direction of a fleeing suspected shoplifter might be OK in some circumstances, at least a long as you are "trying" (mostly unsuccessfully) to hit the tire.

In Michigan (and in Minnesota), it would be illegal for even a police officer to have shot at this suspected shoplifter.

[Holland&Holland]

There are frankly people in this thread who need to learn how to read.

My assertion, of which you are free to agree or disagree with (last time I checked I am still allowed an opinion on the matter), is that the opinion that one who commits a property crime should be immune from personal danger is not one I agree with. Your actions put yourself at risk and you reap what you sow. Does that mean I would pull out my personal carry piece? Hell no. I am not an idiot, I can however disagree that the current law/opinion on this is flawed in my view.

[Hmac]

She endangered the life of the driver of the car. He had been convicted of nothing, not even charged with anything. He's driving away and someone yell's "he's a shoplifter" and she starts blasting away putting his life in danger. What is she, Judge Dredd?

She's an idiot who must have fallen asleep in her carry permit course and she's lucky she didn't hit the guy or she'd likely be looking at a different set of charges, maybe manslaughter. Not to mention the civil liability - that shoplifter could sue her *** off and he'd win.

As a corollary, I'd be pissed if I came out of Home Depot and found a bullet hole in my car from some idiot vigilante throwing random bullets around the parking lot.

Did I state she did not endanger the driver? No.

I like how you read into my words other words that are not there.

Sorry if I overinterpreted your statement "Others is not the driver of the car".

You agree that she endangered the life of the driver of the car, then?

[Holland&Holland]

She endangered the life of the driver of the car. He had been convicted of nothing, not even charged with anything. He's driving away and someone yell's "he's a shoplifter" and she starts blasting away putting his life in danger. What is she, Judge Dredd?

She's an idiot who must have fallen asleep in her carry permit course and she's lucky she didn't hit the guy or she'd likely be looking at a different set of charges, maybe manslaughter. Not to mention the civil liability - that shoplifter could sue her *** off and he'd win.

As a corollary, I'd be pissed if I came out of Home Depot and found a bullet hole in my car from some idiot vigilante throwing random bullets around the parking lot.

Did I state she did not endanger the driver? No.

I like how you read into my words other words that are not there.

Sorry if I overinterpreted your statement "Others is not the driver of the car".

You agree that she endangered the life of the driver of the car, then?

Completely, my point is that while her endangerment of others is wrong, stupid, and not what I support. The fact that the thief was endangered is due to his own actions and not one that I have any sympathy for.

[Hmac]

[


Sorry if I overinterpreted your statement "Others is not the driver of the car".

You agree that she endangered the life of the driver of the car, then?

Completely, my point is that while her endangerment of others is wrong, stupid, and not what I support. The fact that the thief was endangered is due to his own actions and not one that I have any sympathy for.

I agree, one assumes a certain level of risk when doing something illegal and has to be prepared to accept the consequences of their actions. This applies to both shoplifters and to pistol-toting vigilantes. Personally, I'm not sympathetic to either of the two perpetrators in this scenario.

[LarryP]

They really made sure she can't get a permit again anytime soon!

[jdege]

Like I said, it depends upon the angles. She was shooting at the tire. Was the driver in the line of fire? Was anyone else in the line of fire? I don't know, you don't know.

What worries me, and should worry everybody who is concerned that permit-holder vigilantes may further put gun rights at risk for the rest of us, is that there are people in this thread who seem to believe that launching bullets (read "lethal force") in the direction of a fleeing suspected shoplifter might be OK in some circumstances, at least a long as you are "trying" (mostly unsuccessfully) to hit the tire.

In Michigan (and in Minnesota), it would be illegal for even a police officer to have shot at this suspected shoplifter.

As I said earlier, it's never legal. And since it's not self-defense, none of the protections against negligent discharge, discharge in a public place, willful endangerment, etc. apply.

So I'd have expected her to be charged and convicted of whatever ordinances would apply.

So I have no beef with her being found guilty. I do question her training, in that she seems to have been surprised to have been. But if, under the circumstances, she had decided that being found guilty of discharge in a public place to be worth the benefit in assisting the police in capturing the suspects, I would have considered that her call to make.