To business owners and employees: See someone stealing, probably better off letting them go because the situation may go south and look bad in the public eye.
To thieves: Don't worry about anyone at the store stopping you.
Maybe the security is should be there to protect the thieves in case any of the employees try to stop the thief?
__________________
__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."
To business owners and employees: See someone stealing, probably better off letting them go because the situation may go south and look bad in the public eye.
To thieves: Don't worry about anyone at the store stopping you.
Maybe the security is should be there to protect the thieves in case any of the employees try to stop the thief?
I want to agree with you, but...
I'm a concealed carrier, so I'm familiar with use-of-force laws. (Which are separate and apply to everyone, not just concealed carriers.) The law in my state says I am only permitted to use lethal force when I fear a credible threat of serious bodily injury. The law specifies that I cannot use lethal force to stop a theft of property.
If someone walks into my house, grabs my wallet from my coffee table, and runs back out before I grab my gun, I can't shoot him as he runs away. If I have a firearm in my hands and it accidentally discharges and injures this thief as he runs away, I'm still on the hook for assault with a deadly weapon.
I have no doubt that these folks did not intend to kill this thief. But the fact that he's dead, presumably due to injury they caused him, means that they used lethal force against him. I am not aware of any circumstances where they were justified in using such force against him. The fact that he is stealing is insufficient to allow for that level of force to be used.
Now, if it turns out that he not only was stealing, but actually presented an imminent, credible threat to anyone in the vicinity, I'd be happy to support these guys. But that doesn't seem to be the case.
__________________
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
But then again I dont think that it was their intention to use deadly force - chances are they were:
Trying to detain him
Defending themselves in the process
It didnt say anything about a weapon being present and I guess they didnt go too far into the extent of his injuries. (Or the extent of injuries he caused or would have caused)
There is much more to this story that needs to come out before a rational decision can be made.
I'm a concealed carrier, so I'm familiar with use-of-force laws. (Which are separate and apply to everyone, not just concealed carriers.) The law in my state says I am only permitted to use lethal force when I fear a credible threat of serious bodily injury. The law specifies that I cannot use lethal force to stop a theft of property.
If someone walks into my house, grabs my wallet from my coffee table, and runs back out before I grab my gun, I can't shoot him as he runs away. If I have a firearm in my hands and it accidentally discharges and injures this thief as he runs away, I'm still on the hook for assault with a deadly weapon.
I have no doubt that these folks did not intend to kill this thief. But the fact that he's dead, presumably due to injury they caused him, means that they used lethal force against him. I am not aware of any circumstances where they were justified in using such force against him. The fact that he is stealing is insufficient to allow for that level of force to be used.
Now, if it turns out that he not only was stealing, but actually presented an imminent, credible threat to anyone in the vicinity, I'd be happy to support these guys. But that doesn't seem to be the case.
I totally understand. I am mostly frustrated at what the result will be (already is). And that is most crimes (thefts) in and at businesses go unchallenged. This is not a deterrent. My belief is a bit harsh and yes, perhaps there is much argument against it.
I feel that if someone goes into someone elses house or SECURED property and steals or anything they should be placing themselves at the mercy of the victim/homeowner/whatever. Then whatever happens happens and in the end it was the fault of the offender. I'd bet that under those circumstances there would be a DRASTIC drop in crime.
I know that's not a realistic solution but I'll bet it would work! It is just frustrating the sort of "catch 22's" you run into with defending property/vs. preventing unreasonable "justice"...
__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."
I worked at Walmart. Their policy is to let the shoplifter go, get license number and call police. These idiots were most likely acting on their own.
As far as shooting someone, Missouri has a castle law. We are allowed to use deadly force to protect ourselves, our property, a neighbor and/or their property.
I feel that if someone goes into someone elses house or SECURED property and steals or anything they should be placing themselves at the mercy of the victim/homeowner/whatever. Then whatever happens happens and in the end it was the fault of the offender. I'd bet that under those circumstances there would be a DRASTIC drop in crime.
I know that's not a realistic solution but I'll bet it would work!
100% agreed....
Quote:
Originally Posted by samfloor
Missouri has a castle law. We are allowed to use deadly force to protect ourselves, our property, a neighbor and/or their property.
same in Colorado.. try coming into my house uninvited and see what happens
I feel that if someone goes into someone elses house or SECURED property and steals or anything they should be placing themselves at the mercy of the victim/homeowner/whatever.
Walmart isn't someone's home or secured property. They don't control access.
What you're talking about is consistent with Castle Doctrine. Castle doctrine says that if someone uses force to gain access to your home, they are presumed to be using force against you. With that presumption in place, you are not burdened with proving that aspect of self-defense. Rather, if someone wants to claim that your actions exceeded self-defense, they have to overcome that presumption by proving that force was not used against you.
__________________
We work together every damn day. --Jon Stewart
Walmart isn't someone's home or secured property. They don't control access.
What you're talking about is consistent with Castle Doctrine. Castle doctrine says that if someone uses force to gain access to your home, they are presumed to be using force against you. With that presumption in place, you are not burdened with proving that aspect of self-defense. Rather, if someone wants to claim that your actions exceeded self-defense, they have to overcome that presumption by proving that force was not used against you.
I understand. However, if there were some sort of force used at businesses to prevent theft, I'll bet that theft would drop DRASTICALLY. Under the current system, most thieves go in fully aware that in most instances the proprietor of a business will just hand over whatever and let them walk right out of the business... Oftentimes with only a slip of paper with some threatening words on it. No wonder people steal so much... They almost aren't stealing, they are just taking what is being given to them! I am aware that SOMETIMES you will get a clerk at a gas station or something that will fight back... The general consensus (media, law enforcement, etc..) is that you should just let them go. Pathetic.
__________________
"A society that puts equality ... ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom."
Linear Mode
