Store Owner shoots Burglar

Status
Not open for further replies.
But I hate it when folks here actually advise others to "cower" before the criminal element.
It's pathetic.
Click to expand...

But I hate it when folks here actually cheer others to assault the alleged criminal element like a play army video game.

It's pathetic.

I think people on TFL are harping to strongly on the cower (Coward ) part, maybe wildalaska needs to rephrase that a bit for the sake of everyones macho bravado
Click to expand...

Not everyones.:D Its a good word to separate them out though:p

WildichosethemcarefullyAlaska TM
 
Of course, if the storeowner in the OP had done what made sense in this situation, which was not go to the store until he was sure the police had already arrived then he wouldn't and COULDN'T have been charged with anything at all. No one would have been in any danger except the people who are paid (and choose) to put themselves in danger. There would be no discussion of why he shot anybody for any reason and I dare say his life would be a hell of a lot better right now.

Isn't that really the point? Does anybody think the storeowner is glad he did what he did? I doubt he's thinking "I taught that SOB a lesson. This will make our society better! We can't let that criminal scum just have their way, we need brave people to act! That's what makes America great!"

No, he's not. He thinking "Oh crap, I could go to jail for a very long time. Why, oh why! I should have just waited for the police. Why am I so stupid! Even if I don't go to jail I'll still be ruined! No more business. The dead guys family is going to take away everything I've worked for all my life."

Ironic, isn't it? He shot a guy who was trying to take a tiny little piece of what he worked for, a guy who wasn't even a threat, regardless of what the storeowner "thought" at the time. So, now, having shot the guy, he will give up most or all of what he was trying to "protect".
 
Last edited:
Peetzakilla said:
Ironic, isn't it? He shot a guy who was trying to take a tiny little piece of what he worked for, a guy who wasn't even a threat, regardless of what the storeowner "thought" at the time. So, now, having shot the guy, he will give up most or all of what he was trying to "protect".
Click to expand...

Bingo.
 
Post #62

Very well put, Peetzakilla, on all points.

Anyone who has not thought through the potential consequences of shooting someone when it is not absolutely necessary can learn some lessons from this poor guy.
 
But I hate it when folks here actually cheer others to assault the alleged criminal element like a play army video game.

It's pathetic.
Click to expand...
I don't know where you're getting the "play army video game" stuff...
Nothing said in this thread, by anyone, would suggest shooting another person is anything like a game.

It might not be your intention, but you really come across as extremely soft on criminals....even to the point where you seem to actually side with them over law abiding citizens.
 
Isn't that really the point? Does anybody think the storeowner is glad he did what he did? I doubt he's thinking "I taught that SOB a lesson. This will make our society better! We can't let that criminal scum just have their way, we need brave people to act! That's what makes America great!"

No, he's not. He thinking "Oh crap, I could go to jail for a very long time. Why, oh why! I should have just waited for the police. Why am I so stupid! Even if I don't go to jail I'll still be ruined! No more business. The dead guys family is going to take away everything I've worked for all my life."
Click to expand...
Actually, we have no way of knowing what the storeowner is thinking.
You're just projecting what YOU would be thinking.

One thing is for sure....we have one less criminal on the streets to prey upon law abiding citizens.

And I highly doubt that the dead guy's family is going to get a penny of the storeowner's money.
If they do then it's because the justice system has failed the law abiding citizens of this nation, and certainly not due to the actions of the storeowner.

And I seriously doubt that the storeowner's business will suffer in the least.
 
And I highly doubt that the dead guy's family is going to get a penny of the storeowner's money.
Click to expand...

Really? Even if they don't personally, individually, get a single penny, they will certainly "get" many thousands of his dollars and many hundreds of his hours in the form of legal fees, court appearances and sleepless nights wondering if he will lose everything.

One thing is for sure....we have one less criminal on the streets to prey upon law abiding citizens.
Click to expand...

Dang straight! Where do I sign the petition to have burglary made a capital offense?:barf::rolleyes:


You're just projecting what YOU would be thinking.
Click to expand...

Nope, I'd be thinking "Darn glad I didn't go down there and do something stupid. I'm glad I let the police handle it. That's why I have an alarm and security cameras and insurance."
 
WA believes you should only defend your self when the BG has you on the ground and has his knife to your throat, Or has you pinned in a closet where you ran to with the barrel of the BG's gun in your mouth. To Wildalaska it is only then that you should defend your self.

If you defend before that you are a bloodthirsty murderer. Seriously, look at his posts from the past. It does not even matter what the law is in your state. That is how he wants it.
 
Dang straight! Where do I sign the petition to have burglary made a capital offense?
Click to expand...
In my opinion, it should be a capital offense.
Then you wouldn't have "repeat offenders".

I would love to see a "three strikes and you're dead" policy when it comes to felonies.
 
It might not be your intention, but you really come across as extremely soft on criminals....even to the point where you seem to actually side with them over law abiding citizens.
Click to expand...

Yeah...it's tough to disregard years of studying jurisprudence with concepts suchlike innocent till proven guilty and proportionate punishment and all the other legal stuff that gets tossed away when the alleged criminal is someone other than a gun owner picked on by the Feds:rolleyes:

WA believes you should only defend your self when the BG has you on the ground and has his knife to your throat, Or has you pinned in a closet where you ran to with the barrel of the BG's gun in your mouth. To Wildalaska it is only then that you should defend your self. If you defend before that you are a bloodthirsty murderer. Seriously, look at his posts from the past. It does not even matter what the law is in your state. That is how he wants it.
Click to expand...

WAs posts speak for themselves, but thanks for trying.

WildletusknowhenyouwanttodiscusstheissuecriticallyAlaska ™
 
Yeah...it's tough to disregard years of studying jurisprudence with concepts suchlike innocent till proven guilty....
Click to expand...
Wait a minute, a guy is in my home uninvited and I should restrain myself because he might be "innocent" of being in my home uninvited???

You can't be serious!:barf:

Perhaps you have "studied" so much that you are hopelessly tangled in the legalese and have forgotten the spirit of the law and the meaning of justice.
Or you're just way too soft on criminals for my taste.
 
I should restrain myself because he might be "innocent" of being in my home uninvited???
Click to expand...

No, you should restrain yourself because:

1)Shooting someone is years of headaches, $10s of thousands of dollars of your money and countless hours/days/weeks of your time, no matter how justified.

2)Trespassing is not a capital offense.

3)You want to do what is best for YOU and your family, which is almost never putting a bullet in another human being. (See #1)
 
Looks like a criminal got what he deserved. I'm tired of these revolving criminals getting away with there 4th 5th 12th arrest only to be sent back out to do it again. I feel sorry for the store owner that he was in the position but the thief was stealing his life support. If it was cattle (back in the days of old)he would of been hung. I dont feel sorrow for thiefs or liers. Its just a matter of time before they will hurt someone with there words or weapons.
 
peetzakilla, have you ever actually shot anyone as a civilian while you were not carrying out your duty as a military or law enforcement?
 
Wildalaska has not studied anything that gives those cower philosophies real ground.

check my previous post about the customers of Luby's in Killeen Texas COWERING. The reason we have CCW laws in Texas, so we do not have to cower while getting our brains blown out. It gives up the ability to stand up and fight the BG. Check my prev. post.
 
Actually, we have no way of knowing what the storeowner is thinking.
Click to expand...

True, but it would be most reasonable to assume that he is deeply concerned about what may lie ahead for him and his family...

One thing is for sure....we have one less criminal on the streets to prey upon law abiding citizens.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but as developments unfold it may turn out that another will be going into prison, or perhaps put on probation.

And I highly doubt that the dead guy's family is going to get a penny of the storeowner's money.
Click to expand...

I have no idea how to predict that....it would be pure conjecture.

If they do then it's because the justice system has failed the law abiding citizens of this nation, and certainly not due to the actions of the storeowner.
Click to expand...

If they do it will be solely due to the actions of the storeowner--to his use of deadly force.

And I seriously doubt that the storeowner's business will suffer in the least.
Click to expand...

Pure conjecture. But there's at least a strong possibility that the business will be damaged if not driven into liquidation by the expenditures necessary to mount a legal defense, by the time the storeowner is fully engaged in a defense of justifiability and unable to work, and potentially, by the absence of the storeowner if he is imprisoned.

It has been described as a "complex" case. All we know is that a storeowner went to his place of business after an alarm was triggered, saw someone inside who had entered unlawfully, and fatally shot the man from outside. He says he thought he saw a gun, but he didn't.

The charging authority could decide to accept is story. He would still be exposed to civil claims.

He could be charged criminally and taken to trial court. The trial could result in an acquittal or conviction.

Even in the event of the former, he could be bankrupt or perhaps nearly so. In the event of the latter, he will have lost not only his fortune but also his clean record, his right to ever own a gun, and potentially, his personal freedom for some period of time.

Had he been inside his place of business in a state in which he castle doctrine extends to those premises at the time when the criminal broke in, he would undoubtedly have an easier time of it.

But that's not what happened. He went to his place of business to check out the alarm, saw someone inside, and fired from outside the premises. He had the option of calling the police before approaching. He is apparently basing his case on his statement that he believed that the perp was pointing a gun.

But isn't that just what every last killer in the country would claim?

Who knows how it will turn out? But one can assume with a high degree of confidence that the storeowner hand his family would be better off now and probably in the future had he not fired his weapon, or if his story is true, if he had kept his distance until the perp had been caught and rendered harmless.
 
If they do it will be solely due to the actions of the storeowner--to his use of deadly force.
Click to expand...
NOT AT ALL!

I refuse to blame the victim.

The one at blame here is the criminal who broke in to the business.
Had he chosen to be a law abiding citizen instead of choosing to be a thief and parasite upon society, he would probably still be alive today.
 
One Other Possibility

I mentioned the possibilities of a decision to not charge, a trial resulting in acquittal, and conviction.

Of course, as in the Oregon case involving someone who had entered a house uninvited , there could also be a case of plea bargaining, where the storeowner agrees to plead guilty to a lesser offense than that listed in the state's charge.

Could be a year before we know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top