Castle Doctrine, Dan Rather Reports

[OuTcAsT]

Does that mean you advocate just letting the thief go?

IMO That would be correct, be a good witness. Unless he is willing to be detained and wait for LE.

That the shopkeeper/clerk should not attempt to apprehend a thief once he gets outside the doors?

That would be an unwise move IMO. The threat has ceased.

If an armed store clerk chases the thief threescore yards down the street and the thief turns and pulls a knife, would you say that clerk could invoke self-defense for shooting the thief?

I would posit that the clerk has then become the aggressor, and it would no longer be self defense but an attempt at vigilante style justice. Once you leave the safety of your shop to go play cops and robbers, (unless, of course, the clerk is LE) how could you claim self defense ? Self defense is for when trouble finds you, not when you go looking for it.

 

[Ricky B]

I would posit that the clerk has then become the aggressor, and it would no longer be self defense but an attempt at vigilante style justice. Once you leave the safety of your shop to go play cops and robbers, (unless, of course, the clerk is LE) how could you claim self defense ? Self defense is for when trouble finds you, not when you go looking for it.

The clerk has every legal right to pursue a thief. That does not make him the aggressor. Trouble found the clerk when the thief stole from the store. It is a natural human impulse to seek to recover property that has been wrongfully taken from you, and the law recognizes that. It is allowable to use reasonable force to recover the property.

Whether it is wise to do so is a different matter. Whether there will be a dispute about who pulled a knife first, etc., may cloud the facts in a real case.

But in this hypothetical case, the clerk has the right to chase the thief, and the thief has no right to use a deadly weapon to "defend" himself from being captured or from having the property recovered. Unlike some other situations we have discussed on TFL, here the thief is the first one to employ a deadly weapon, and he has absolutely no right to do so. The thief is the aggressor, and the clerk is entitled to defend himself.

 

[OuTcAsT]

The clerk has every legal right to pursue a thief. That does not make him the aggressor.

I never said there was no legal right to pursue the thief.

Trouble found the clerk when the thief stole from the store.

Then he should have handled it in the store.

It is a natural human impulse to seek to recover property that has been wrongfully taken from you, and the law recognizes that. It is allowable to use reasonable force to recover the property.

So recovering a six pack at gunpoint is reasonable force ? Please show me your States statute that allows that, I should like to be educated.

The thief is the aggressor, and the clerk is entitled to defend himself.

Sorry, not once the thief leaves that store. The threat is over, only the clerk escalating the situation puts him in danger, and thus gives him a reason to shoot. You may continue to advance this circular logic all you wish, but once the threat is diminished, the clerk is either safe, or puts himself in the place of aggressor.

Under your notion, we should not need LE agencies at all, since we have a legal right to pursue, arrest, or execute criminals.

And yes, I said execute, because your "circular logic" of ; "I will chase the criminal, and if he resists, he has put me in danger, so I can defend myself with lethal force" It is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[armsmaster270]

Quote:
Another benefit of 'castle doctrine' is the family of the BG can't sue you in civil court if the shoot was ruled justifiable.

I was in a Justifiable shooting and the family tried to sue me until their P.I. told them they had a snowballs chance of winning and they dropped it on their own.

 

[OuTcAsT]

Another benefit of 'castle doctrine' is the family of the BG can't sue you in civil court if the shoot was ruled justifiable.

I was in a Justifiable shooting and the family tried to sue me until their P.I. told them they had a snowballs chance of winning and they dropped it on their own.

Of course, there is absolutely no law that prevents anyone from filing a civil suit for any shooting, it may lessen their chances to win, but they can certainly still sue.

 

[BillCA]

Hmmm.... maybe the laws are much different in Tennessee. Or maybe you should read up on both criminal law and evidence procedure.

Does that mean you advocate just letting the thief go?

IMO That would be correct, be a good witness. Unless he is willing to be detained and wait for LE.

Under that theory, no merchant could remain in business very long. He might as well throw his merchandise out on the street for people to take.

That the shopkeeper/clerk should not attempt to apprehend a thief once he gets outside the doors?

That would be an unwise move IMO. The threat has ceased.

What "threat"? We're talking a petty theft of beer or similar items.

In addition, in most retail establishments you cannot be arrested by their staff or security until you have exited the store. Stores like Target, Sears, Safeway, etc. cannot arrest you because you walked past the register lines. Only once you exit the store have you actually commited a shoplifting crime.

If an armed store clerk chases the thief threescore yards down the street and the thief turns and pulls a knife, would you say that clerk could invoke self-defense for shooting the thief?

I would posit that the clerk has then become the aggressor, and it would no longer be self defense but an attempt at vigilante style justice. Once you leave the safety of your shop to go play cops and robbers, (unless, of course, the clerk is LE) how could you claim self defense ? Self defense is for when trouble finds you, not when you go looking for it.

I would disagree. The merchant (or his agent - the clerk) has a right to pursue, capture and arrest the person for shoplifting under most state statutes. Because he is attempting to stop a crime and/or arrest a person he knows committed that crime, he does not give up his right to self-defense when he attempts to restrain the individual.¹

A thief, by being the instigator of a crime (shoplifting), upon being caught or seized as a result, cannot invoke a claim of "self-defense" without showing that he had reason to believe he was in danger of death or great bodily injury.²

¹ The merchant does not become an "aggressor" by acting lawfully under the statutes authorizing arrest and restraint of the criminal. He still retains his rights to self-defense.
² If the criminal actor resists capture with violent acts and the actions of the person(s) arresting him are reasonable under the circumstances, the criminal actor cannot justify the [officer's or citizen's] use of force as an excuse for self-defense unless it is clearly excessive or other evidence supports his claim.

 

[OuTcAsT]

Hmmm.... maybe the laws are much different in Tennessee. Or maybe you should read up on both criminal law and evidence procedure.

Well Thanks Bill, but I believe I am reasonably well versed on both in Tennessee, in fact TN has some of the most liberal laws concerning this type of crime, and pursuit. I made no legal claims, my statement was from a common sense standpoint.

Certainly it is "legal" to pursue a shoplifter, whether it is wise is an opinion.

Certainly you may legally pursue said shoplifter while you are armed, and if he pulls a weapon you may legally defend yourself.

My opinion was, and is, that in doing so, you have needlessly escalated the situation to the point where you have now possibly executed someone for petty theft.
(a misdemeanor)
Is it "legal"? certainly. Is it right ? Not in my opinion.

Now, if the thief produces a weapon inside the establishment, for the purpose of robbery (a felony) Then stopping the threat is justifiable. (IMO )


As a side note, you may find it interesting to know that in TN, not only is it legal to pursue a felon, you may even break in his own door or window to make an arrest. (just like a Real LEO)

There is also, currently, a large bruhaha about such practices by private citizens, and "armed security" mall ninjas, and their use of excessive force. Seems the private citizen just might not have the training to know when enough is enough.


A rather "Big Box" chain of stores that is one of my customers has come up with the right idea concerning this type of crime, they use video as evidence, then, instead of a "pursuit" they casually follow the person, call LE, and wait. Or, write down a license plate number, and obtain a warrant. The video is their evidence, seems like a much better plan to me, and nobody takes the risk of killing, or being killed, over a six-pak.

 

[Al Norris]

I believe we have wondered far afield of Castle Doctrine, when we begin discussing theft, shoplifting and lawful pursuit.

Take it to another thread, as this one's done.