MNGunTalk.com

'Sharpshooter' who flattened tire of fleeing shoplifters' car with gun gets probation

A woman described as a "sharpshooter" was sentenced to 18 months of probation Wednesday for
firing a gun at the getaway car as suspected shoplifters fled a Home Depot in suburban Detroit.



http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2 ... =obnetwork

Interesting

Yup. Use of lethal force not justified to stop a shoplifter. IMHO we do NOT need more people running around shooting at people who commit non-violent property crimes.

It's Detroit.

That type of problem solving is reserved for LEO's only.

Hmac wrote:Yup. Use of lethal force not justified to stop a shoplifter. IMHO we do NOT need more people running around shooting at people who commit non-violent property crimes.

100% this.
Her lawyer would disagree.

my1stpistol wrote:

Hmac wrote:Yup. Use of lethal force not justified to stop a shoplifter. IMHO we do NOT need more people running around shooting at people who commit non-violent property crimes.

Her lawyer would disagree.

He's paid to disagree. Who knows what he really believes?

MNIceMan wrote:That type of problem solving is reserved for LEO's only.

Using lethal force to stop a fleeing shoplifter is a pretty dicey deal for a cop too.

Shooting a tire is not a use of lethal force.

On the other hand, absence of immediate threat removed the self defense protection against discharge in an occupied area, etc.

I can see what she was thinking. I'd have advised against it, but I'd have defended her, after the fact.

jdege wrote:Shooting a tire is not a use of lethal force.

Sure it is, if there's someone in the car.

Not to mention stupid.

Hmac wrote:

jdege wrote:Shooting a tire is not a use of lethal force.

Sure it is, if there's someone in the car.

Not to mention stupid.

Legally, perhaps. And I can easily see how the circumstances are such that sitting at a tire might have put bystanders at risk. But I can conceive of circumstances where it would not.

I will fully admit that it was legally unwise. But I won't judge it to have been morally wrong without knowing the details.

jdege wrote:
I will fully admit that it was legally unwise. But I won't judge it to have been morally wrong without knowing the details.

Nobody has said it was "morally wrong". Just illegal and stupid.

"Shoot the tires out"...just like on TV, huh? This "sharpshooter" shot "several times" and hit the car once. Where'd those other bullets go in that crowded parking lot? She was shooting at the car (applying lethal force) with a person in it. What if one of those errant bullets had hit the driver and killed him? Worse...a bystander? For shoplifting?

Now that I think about it, it was morally wrong to endanger that shoplifter, other shoppers, or other vehicles by a civilian (or LEO for that matter) using lethal force to try to stop a property crime that endangered no lives.

Hmac wrote:

jdege wrote:
I will fully admit that it was legally unwise. But I won't judge it to have been morally wrong without knowing the details.

Nobody has said it was "morally wrong". Just illegal and stupid.

"Shoot the tires out"...just like on TV, huh? This "sharpshooter" shot "several times" and hit the car once. Where'd those other bullets go in that crowded parking lot? She was shooting at the car (applying lethal force) with a person in it. What if one of those errant bullets had hit the driver and killed him? Worse...a bystander? For shoplifting?

Now that I think about it, it was morally wrong to endanger that shoplifter, other shoppers, or other vehicles by a civilian (or LEO for that matter) using lethal force to try to stop a property crime that endangered no lives.

I disagree in part. Is it illegal yes. Should she have endangered others no. Should the shoplifter be endangered for shoplifting? Here is where I disagree. We used to hang horse thieves in this country. Now we call it redistributing the wealth.

[quote
Should she have endangered others no.
[/quote]

Should she have endangered others? Of course not. Did she endanger others? Maybe. To judge that we'd need to know more of the precise details than we do. Depending upon the angles, she may have been putting no one at risk.

jdege wrote:[quote
Should she have endangered others no.

Should she have endangered others? Of course not. Did she endanger others? Maybe. To judge that we'd need to know more of the precise details than we do. Depending upon the angles, she may have been putting no one at risk.[/quote]

I agree with that. It is feasible but unlikely she had adequate backstop. But on the other hand Detroit is sparsely populated now in some areas and it is Detroit.