This is what gives the rest of us a bad name

[Eghad]

Now, as for escalating events... I work in a large grocery store. I confront petty crooks, day-in and day-out. I stop them at the door. I chase them in the parking lot. I have tackled them. Not only have I never had to draw from concealment during this type of escalation, they (the crooks) haven't a clue that I'm armed! The fact is, I'm a citizen and I'm making an arrest. Over $1.59 in candy stolen from the store.

Isnt that situation a little different from Joe Citizen? You are an employee of the store on store property. In same states that gives you an advantage over joe citizen when it comes to legal standing.

 

[shortydog]

My question would be did Farmer Brown have his gas pump secured with a good lock? If he did we might not be having this discussion.

yeh, it's the farmer's fault that they stole his gas.

that sounds like the old "if your not doing anything wrong then let us look around".

 

[Edward429451]

Yeah, soon they'll be charging us citizens if we get ripped off. 'Failure to secure property', 'Enciting theft or robbery', and if we try to stop the thief, 'failure to yield'.

 

[buzz_knox]

Yeah, soon they'll be charging us citizens if we get ripped off. 'Failure to secure property', 'Enciting theft or robbery', and if we try to stop the thief, 'failure to yield'.

Failing to secure a firearm is a criminal offense in some states, isn't it?

 

[Edward429451]

Sigh. And I thought I was being sarcastic.

 

[OBIWAN]

"I have tackled them."

And if they get seriously hurt when they hit the pavement you could be (probably will be) prosecuted

"it was only a candy bar and now the poor kid is crippled"

If you takle me I am going to kick your butt and then sue you AND the store for unlawful detainment, assault and anything else I can think of

So you better have me on film purposefully stealing the item....and be ready to prove intent

Does anyone remember the hockey dad somewhere out east....he got jumped by another dad....but he went to jail because he finished the fight "too vigorously" and the instigator died.

At the point when you intervene you are leaving yourself wide open to prosecution...so it should be an informed choice

And I think the 911 call shows a bit obout the state-of-mind

This is a lot like the thread about going outside to confront a prowler...even if it is legal...it still isn't smart

Come on...we have leash laws and littering laws around here.....probably an offense with similar punishments to a $5.00 theft

So I am going to hold the next moron that lets their dog crap on my lawn at gunpoint...they had to trespass to do it

Will everyone here visit me in jail?

 

[Edward429451]

And I think the 911 call shows a bit obout the state-of-mind

The farmer? Maybe he was posturing a bit because there was a disparity of force between the 74 yr old man and the younger prolly more tougher thief, and the farmer knew he was unloaded? So fear might've been the state of mind.

(Whats with all the extreme thinking going on? Just because some of us would confront the thief doesn't mean we would shoot them down over a candy bar, and it doesn't mean that you should draw down on someone for their dog crapping on your lawn. It's good to have restraint, but also good to have a sense of civic duty. There's a happy medium here that all should comprehend. The farmer seems to have had it. He caught the guy and didn't shoot him, didn't he? Extreme thinking is the Anti's tool. Don't fall for it. Where's all the blood in the streets from the Assault Rifle ban ending eh?)

 

[Trip20]

At the point when you intervene you are leaving yourself wide open to prosecution...

And therein lies the reasoning behind the choice of most citizens to watch and do nothing as their fellow man gets beaten, killed, raped, stolen from, vandalized, harassed... et cetera.

Well, that and plain old fear.

Come on...we have leash laws and littering laws around here.....probably an offense with similar punishments to a $5.00 theft

So I am going to hold the next moron that lets their dog crap on my lawn at gunpoint...

You're not serious I hope. There's an enormous difference between dog crap and theft. Sometimes the significance of an offense is not defined by monetary value, contrary to what lawyers have taught us.

 

[Playboypenguin]

So I am going to hold the next moron that lets their dog crap on my lawn at gunpoint...

You're not serious I hope. There's an enormous difference between dog crap and theft. Sometimes the significance of an offense is not defined by monetary value, contrary to what lawyers have taught us.

You just supported his case. If it is not the severity of the offense or monetary value then the guy letting his dog crap on someone else's lawn is just as bad as someone coming to your home and ripping up your yard, destroying your properrty, etc.

It is still a willful disregard for another persons private property. So if you start prosecuting people on principal or perceived intent where does it stop?

 

[Edward429451]

where does it stop?

A better question is where does it start? I ask you again PBP, where do you draw the line?

There's such a thing as situational ethics ya know. I'd see someone letting their dog crap on my lawn as rudeness rather than damage. Geez, all ya gotta do is pick it up.

But stealing gas and letting him go? where's the deterrant in that? Maybe if he was let go he'd return sometime for more gas, uh-oh, car in driveway. Now I know when he's not home. Maybe I'll just come back later and B&E the place cause I'll know he's not home. Escalatory. Big difference. I bet him or none of his buddies steal gas from that street again.

 

[Trip20]

You just supported his case. If it is not the severity of the offense or monetary value...

Let me repeat what I said:

Sometimes the significance of an offense is not defined by monetary value. Meaning $5 theft, $50 theft, $500 theft -- is all still theft. I'll leave it up to the victim to determine how severe a theft is as they know how a loss will impact their life better than I.

But I wasn't debating theft severity. I was debating poop and theft.

Theft and dog crap are not the same as he implied. I did not support his case.

 

[Al Norris]

If you takle me I am going to kick your butt and then sue you AND the store for unlawful detainment, assault and anything else I can think of

You can sure try, I'll give you that.

TITLE 18
CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS
CHAPTER 46
LARCENY AND RECEIVING STOLEN GOODS​

18-4626. WILLFUL CONCEALMENT OF GOODS, WARES OR MERCHANDISE -- DEFENSE
FOR DETENTION. (a) Whoever, without authority, willfully conceals the goods,
wares or merchandise of any store or merchant, while still upon the premises
of such store or merchant, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon
conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand
dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six
(6) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Goods, wares or merchandise
found concealed upon the person shall be prima facie evidence of a willful
concealment.

(b) Any owner, his authorized employee or agent of any store or merchant,
apprehending or detaining a person on or in the immediate vicinity of the
premises of any store or merchant, for the purpose of investigation or
questioning as to the ownership of any goods, wares or merchandise, shall have
as a defense in any action, civil or criminal, that such detention of the
person or persons was in a reasonable manner and for not more than a
reasonable time to permit such investigation or questioning by a peace officer
or by the owner of the store or merchant, his authorized employee or agent,
and that such peace officer, owner, employee or agent had probable cause to
believe that the person so detained was committing or attempting to commit an
offense as set forth in subsection (a) of this section. "Reasonable time"
shall mean the time necessary to permit the person detained to make a
statement or to refuse to make a statement, and the time necessary to examine
employees and records of the store or merchant relative to ownership of the
merchandise.​

I hope you notice that this section does not define the manner by which you were detained, but also provides immunity for the person making the arrest. Reasonable man standards. So, go ahead and increase the force continuum. The Prosecutor will just start stacking charges... Good way to turn a misdemeanor into a felony, if you ask me.

So I am going to hold the next moron that lets their dog crap on my lawn at gunpoint...they had to trespass to do it

That's a strawman argument. We were talking about theft. Not a violation of some litter or leash law.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Since so many of you refuse to see degrees of offense, should someone who eats a grape at a grocery store be gunned down. Most chain stores have "no sampling" policies. That means when you sample a grape you are stealing from the store.

The whole point here is about how a gun owner should behave. When you put that firearm on your body you better damn well be able to abide by the law of the land, not how you think the law should be written. You personal belief of right and wrong becomes irrelevant at that point. The reality is the farmer broke the law by brandishing the weapon and using unnecessary force.

Do an internet search of instances where a victim shot a suspect during a minor crime or during a small theft or tresspassing event and you will find the law is very clearly not on their side in about 99% of the cases. if you don't have the character or temperment to abide by the law while carrying (even the ones you disagree with) then maybe you should not be carrying.

And sitting here and trying to defend a violation of the law does not go very far to make gun owners look like law abiding citizens. It could be very easily taken from this thread that gun owners believe in doing what they feel is right regardless of the law and that "might makes right".

 

[Mike P. Wagner]

because there was a disparity of force between the 74 yr old man and the younger prolly more tougher thief

What does "disparity of force" have to do with any of this? Was the younger man assaulting the older man? Is that just a nifty legal term some of heard one time?

Seriously, most legal terms have specific meanings either by statute or legal deicions - they're not just ketchup you glop on anything you want. I am pretty sure that "disparity of force" is a legal doctine related to assault/battery. Do you have any reason to believe that it applies to any aspect of this case?

the farmer knew he was unloaded

Unless the thief also knew that it was unloaded, then that makes no difference at all legally. A jury might see it differently.

I am betting that this isn't over until you hear from the girlfriend's attorney. If she did not conspire with him to steal the gasoline, and at any point the muzzle of the shotgun aimed at her or her baby (or she and her boyfriend are willing to say that it did), I am willing to bet that there will be a suit.

Mike

 

[Eghad]

shall have as a defense in any action, civil or criminal,

That does not mean that the individual is prevented from filing a civil law suit. It just means that after you show up in court you have a defense to present to the judge.

 

[Trip20]

Since so many of you refuse to see degrees of offense...

No one is refusing anything of the sort. However attributing that belief to the rest of us sure is a good way to begin a strawman argument about a grape.

I got involved in this thread when it turned to something I felt is more to the core of this entire discussion: whether or not we should be involved with the protection of our communities, and our neighbors.

For some reason people began to argue degrees of offense with some of the most silly strawman arguments I've seen in awhile.

Dog poop and a grape. Seriously guys...

I may not agree with the tactics used by this farmer, but I’ll defend what I believe is the duty to protect one’s community with out being viewed as a vigilante.

 

[Edward429451]

Disparity of force may have been in the farmers mind, he was old & unloaded and if the thief were to have called his bluff and tried to take away the farmers SG, the farmer would have lost and he knew that. So while the thief may have not known that, and luckily for the farmer he didn't try to fight back, the farmer was prolly still nervous at the possibility and so postured to the thief by asking the 911 operator if he could blow him away. That was my point, and I believe it would apply because it comes down to reasonable belief that you were in danger yada yada yada...(The farmer knew he was still in danger even with a SG because it was unloaded.)

 

[govmule84]

Considering all the possible legal ramifications of doing what the farmer did, I would feel comfortable just calling the police. If someone was being robbed with a deadly weapon, injured, raped, etc. - then the situation would be different. But for five bucks of gas I am supposed to open myself up to a criminal record, voting privileges being taken away, no more guns for ever and ever, and whatever financial penalties may be incurred? I don't think so. I think most of the laws allowing that are ridiculous, but they are still there, and they do guide my course of action.

I'm not saying the farmer wasn't brave, or doing the right thing...but good grief, that's a heck of a lot of responsibility to take on.

 

[OBIWAN]

Antipitas

Very nice...but notice there is a requirement for probable cause

which is why you can breeze right by the checker at Costco and they can't "tackle you"...unless they saw you steal something...and they better have film

And no mention of the use of force...merely a blanket statement on detainment

So I imagine that if some overzealous security guard drew down on me...and then shot me because he was so darn nervous then I could sue him for assault

Because while your ordinance as shown mentions detainment it does not give anyone the right to shoot someone (or blow them away)

Eghad is right...you can claim you had a reason to detain....but it does not absolve you from blame for how you did it...and whether it was justified.

You would still have to prove probable cause


"whether or not we should be involved with the protection of our communities, and our neighbors."

Heck YES

Whether we should fantasize about being Marshall Dillon and risk gunplay over petty theft

I say...Heck NO

And please stop acting like anyone is a coward because they don't choose to escalate the situation...I happen to think having the shotgun along was a great way for this guy to "turn a misdemeanor into a felony"

I think we all agree that we should all be watching out for our neighbors

And I believe we all agree that we should not turn a blind eye to crime

But if you think gunplay is warranted over a $5.00 theft then perhaps you would be happier in Singapore

Having a different (and likely safer for all) approach to neighborhood watch or community policing does not make someone a coward

I imagine that if the old man had shot some mentally disturbed kid that had mistaken the nieghbors pump for a self service station then opinions would differ

And what some of us are trying to point out...is that could very easily have been the case

You make an inference that because we draw the line at (possibly) shooting a petty thief that we feel it is open season for other crimes

Get real

Well trained cops accidently shoot real bad guys ...it happens

Anyone here think the old guy would have been justified in shooting this gas thief???

 

[liliysdad]

If the thief had resisted the lawful arrest in a manner that caused Mr. Farmer to feel as though he was in danger of death or serious bodily harm, you bet I would be behind him shooting the gas thief. As it is, this is a moot point, because there were no shots fired, nor did the old man intend to shoot him, as I'm sure he would have if he did.


I simply don't see how anyone can let a theft go, especially from a rural area like this. Its no different than a burglary. If a bad guy crawls in though your window, and only steals a can of soda, are you simply going to let him do this night after night? Since the police will not assign an officer to watch your house every night, the criminal decides that nothing is going to happen , so he continues to do this. Where do you draw the line?

For me, the line is entry into my residence. Period, I do not care what the intent may be. A farm is no different. The front gate is the entrance into my home, same as a front door. Everything on that property is the product of blood, sweat, and tears. I will be damned if someone is going to come in and take whats mine.