Could have been a lot worse

Grapeshot · Dec 17, 2015

The good lady's poor judgement put her on the wrong side of the law and it could have been much worse if someone had been hit by her shots.

"Woman Who Shot at Home Depot Shoplifters Vows to Never Help Anyone Again"

"The gunslinging bystander who drew national attention when she opened fire at fleeing shoplifters in a Home Depot parking lot vowed Wednesday that she will never help anyone again."

"Ms. Duva-Rodriguez entered a plea of no contest to the charge on Oct. 26. On Wednesday, she appeared in a Rochester Hills courtroom and was granted 18 months’ probation. Her permit to carry a concealed weapon was revoked until at least 2023."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/12/u...plifters-vows-to-never-help-anyone-again.html

utbagpiper · Dec 17, 2015

Considering she flattened the tire of the get-away car while the thieves were driving away, she seems to be ok with the marksmanship skills....as long as that was her target.

Could have been a lot worse for her. Though I think 18 months probation and the loss of her permit and ability to defend herself for the next 7 years is a pretty stiff penalty for a crime in which nobody was injured and only criminals were directly threatened with injury.

I know, I know. We don't use deadly force for mere property theft, and with the suspects fleeing nobody was in any danger. She should have known better. I just think the penalty is harsh given what few details I have available.

Grape, the link you've provided is an embedded outbrain link that redirects. It may cause challenges for some browsers depending on firewall settings. It can be readily edited down to http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/12/us/woman-who-shot-at-home-depot-shoplifters-vows-to-never-help-anyone-again.html to go directly to the NY Times article rather than first being redirected to the spam ad site.

Charles

Grapeshot · Dec 17, 2015

utbagpiper said:
Considering she flattened the tire of the get-away car while the thieves were driving away, she seems to be ok with the marksmanship skills....as long as that was her target.

Could have been a lot worse for her. Though I think 18 months probation and the loss of her permit and ability to defend herself for the next 7 years is a pretty stiff penalty for a crime in which nobody was injured and only criminals were directly threatened with injury.

I know, I know. We don't use deadly force for mere property theft, and with the suspects fleeing nobody was in any danger. She should have known better. I just the penalty is harsh given what few details I have available.

Grape, the link you've provided is an embedded outbrain link that redirects. It may cause challenges for some browsers depending on firewall settings. It can be readily edited down to http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/12/u...plifters-vows-to-never-help-anyone-again.html to go directly to the NY Times article rather than first being redirected to the spam ad site.

Charles

Thanks for the direct link - edited the OP.

While no CC, the lady has not lost her right to own or possess and she can still OC when out and about. Carrying in a vehicle becomes problematic though w/o a permit.

utbagpiper · Dec 17, 2015

Grapeshot said:
While no CC, the lady has not lost her right to own or possess and she can still OC when out and about. Carrying in a vehicle becomes problematic though w/o a permit.

Good point on OC. But as hassle increases (vehicle carry, having to avoid OC unfriendly locations, etc) the practical ability to maintain an effective self defense goes down. I wouldn't be surprised if she has some restrictions on possession while on probation the next 18 months. Maybe not.

An important reminder to each of us.

We have a fellow over on a Utah gun forum who summed up what I think is a pretty ideal attitude regarding the use of a gun against another. To paraphrase him:

Before ever using a gun I ask myself whether the consequences of not using the gun are worse than going to prison for life and being bankrupted. Every use of a gun against a person carries some risk of being bankrupted (either through civil action or defending against criminal charges) and going to prison. Don't use a gun unless the consequences of not using it are worse than prison and bankruptcy. By following this standard, I expect to never end up in prison or bankrupted since I'll never use a gun except to prevent death or grave bodily injury (the only things worse than bankruptcy or prison) to myself or my loved ones. And if someone does go wrong and I unjustly end up in prison and/or bankrupted, I'll at least have the comfort of knowing that is less bad than if I had not acted.

One can quibble over details, but at a high level, I think this is a pretty good standard. It keeps in perspective that insults and slights, loss of property, and other similar issues are not where one properly reaches for a gun. Chasing down fleeing bad guys once a threat has ended is a bad idea. And using deadly force in defense of unknown third parties can be highly risky for those who do not enjoy qualified immunity.

Charles

davidmcbeth · Dec 17, 2015

I would look at her actions from the point of her conducting a citizen's arrest here..

Utah allows a citizen arrest:

U.C.A. § 77-7-3: Arrest by Private Persons

A private person may arrest another: (1) For a public offense committed or attempted in his presence; or (2) When a felony has been committed and he has reasonable cause to believe the person arrested has committed it.

It is usually a defense to raise at trial. Then the burden is on the state to show why the arrest activities were improper.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13454032247030568948&q=77-7-3&hl=en&as_sdt=4,45

^^ a Utah citizen's arrest case ... ""[a]ny person is justified in using any force, except deadly force, which he reasonably believes to be necessary to effect an arrest or to defend himself or another from bodily harm while making an arrest."

So it looks like in Utah, use of deadly force was likely not permissible in her situation.

utbagpiper · Dec 17, 2015

davidmcbeth said:
So it looks like in Utah, use of deadly force was likely not permissible in her situation.

Which has what to do with a case out of Michigan?

utbagpiper · Dec 17, 2015

Nightmare said:
Eighteen months probation sounds like eighteen months supervised release to me, and a felony.

I don't suspect they ever let a felon get a carry permit. So the fact she may be eligible to get permit back sometime after 2023 suggests this is not the same as time in jail or that it would technically qualify as a felony. One hopes not anyway.

Charles

fozzy71 · Dec 17, 2015

Grapeshot said:
Thanks for the direct link - edited the OP.

While no CC, the lady has not lost her right to own or possess and she can still OC when out and about. Carrying in a vehicle becomes problematic though w/o a permit.

Most likely not, according to one of the MGO Leagle Beagle's - http://www.migunowners.org/forum/sh...t-Home-Depot&p=2699574&viewfull=1#post2699574

SteveS said:
She is on probation for 18 months. I doubt she is even allowed to possess, much less carry, any kind of weapon until that has expired.

marshaul · Dec 17, 2015

utbagpiper said:
I know, I know. We don't use deadly force for mere property theft, and with the suspects fleeing nobody was in any danger. She should have known better. I just think the penalty is harsh given what few details I have available.

Agreed. I mean, yeah, people really should know better. But at the same time, nobody was hurt. She could have learned a useful civics lesson; instead all she learned was the petulant "now I will never help anyone again". But who can really blame her?

Great job, government.

davidmcbeth · Dec 17, 2015

She may have been found guilty of a misdemeanor v. a felony.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(fr...g.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-752-863a

752.863a Reckless, wanton use or negligent discharge of firearm; penalty.

Sec. 3.

Any person who shall recklessly or heedlessly or wilfully or wantonly use, carry, handle or discharge any firearm without due caution and circumspection for the rights, safety or property of others shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/12/woman_who_shot_at_home_depot_s.html
Duva-Rodriguez pleaded no-contest to reckless discharge of a firearm.

rightwinglibertarian · Dec 17, 2015

Key word is fleeing. Of course this is the heavily biased NYT and we may not have an accurate story but Shoplifting does not constitute immediate danger and threat to life. Therefore drawing the weapon was not called for. I wouldnt have and it's well known how hard line I am. Now if i'd caught armed robbers i'd have fired till they dropped but that's a totally different matter.

DanM · Dec 19, 2015

utbagpiper said:
We have a fellow over on a Utah gun forum who summed up what I think is a pretty ideal attitude regarding the use of a gun against another. To paraphrase him:

Before ever using a gun I ask myself whether the consequences of not using the gun are worse than going to prison for life and being bankrupted. . . .

In Michigan, all that I need to have is "an honest and reasonable belief that imminent death of, sexual assault of, or great bodily harm" to myself or another individual will occur.

If Utah's standard for deadly force is "an honest and reasonable belief that no life sentence or bankruptcy will result", that really sucks and you guys should get it changed.

Joking aside, I think the point you are trying to make (imperfectly) is that folks should be honest with themselves about whether or not they are a responsible gun owner and the likelihood they'll catch themselves a life sentence or bankruptcy through irresponsible ownership or use of a firearm.

But, after having made that assessment and becoming a gun carrier, when it comes to the point of "using a gun" all that matters is whatever variation of "reasonable belief" your state has on use of deadly force . . . and no states' laws that I'm aware of include asking one's self about potential life sentences or bankruptcies.

Citizen · Dec 19, 2015

Somehow I missed this thread when new.

While I cannot and will not condone lethal force against shoplifters, now that the milk is spilt...

...I hope such shooting is now on the minds of shoplifters in that area.

Joe Jacketstuffer: "Hey, Freddy Five-fingers! Wanna go steal some stuff from Productive Pete's store?"

Freddy: "What!?!?! Oh, he!! no! A guy could shot doing that!"

Joe: "Wait! What? No way!!"

Freddy: "Yes, way. You never know when you're gonna have somebody with a gun who doesn't know you can't shoot shoplifters. No, thank you. I ain't getting shot over a carton of cigarettes. You got the newspaper? Gimme the Help Wanted ads."

utbagpiper · Dec 20, 2015

DanM said:
Joking aside, I think the point you are trying to make (imperfectly) is that folks should be honest with themselves about whether or not they are a responsible gun owner and the likelihood they'll catch themselves a life sentence or bankruptcy through irresponsible ownership or use of a firearm.

Actually, the point I was trying to make is that even perfectly legal, responsible use of a firearm could lead to a long prison sentence and/or bankruptcy. Something about beating the rap but not the ride comes to mind. Beating the rap could bankrupt a man. And there is a chance, however slim we may believe it to be, of being wrongly convicted over a perfectly justified, legal, necessary shoot.

So methinks there is some prudence in the personal standard I've paraphrased from another carrier.

Charles

taxman · Dec 20, 2015

utbagpiper said:
Actually, the point I was trying to make is that even perfectly legal, responsible use of a firearm could lead to a long prison sentence and/or bankruptcy. Something about beating the rap but not the ride comes to mind.

Like the fellow in Big Rapids, who was engaged in a simple 1A activity, recognized as such by many, many federal courts. He was given the choice of a few months of unconvicted confinement, or a $15k nonrefundable fine, or a $150k refundable bail that he obviously couldn't pay. The creep who ordered his arrest (a judge who was recently the county persecuting attorney) wanted to make damn sure he paid, even if found not guilty, because the black robed POS knew damn well he was lily white innocent.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2015/12/judge_orders_man_arrested_for.html

http://fox17online.com/2015/12/01/m...or-passing-out-fliers-in-front-of-courthouse/

HPmatt · Dec 20, 2015

So Dec 8th has come and gone - initial hearing on Dec 10th-

http://fox17online.com/2015/12/10/p...ve-a-jury-who-thinks-that-jihad-is-righteous/

After Judge Kimberly Booher adjourned the preliminary exam Thursday, both parties argued who should be called as witnesses in the case. Mecosta County Prosecutor Brian Thiede told Judge Booher he’s not a necessary witness, and if he is called as one he plans to tell the jury the pamphlets Wood passed out could create a “lawless nation.”

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BB62 · Dec 20, 2015

HPmatt said:
So Dec 8th has come and gone - initial hearing on Dec 10th-

http://fox17online.com/2015/12/10/p...ve-a-jury-who-thinks-that-jihad-is-righteous/

... Tapatalk

This case bears serious watching.

davidmcbeth · Dec 20, 2015

Who decides what law is able to bear against us? Its the people, not some commie prosecutor.

The gov't could make littering a life sentence.

Grapeshot · Dec 20, 2015

davidmcbeth said:
Who decides what law is able to bear against us? Its the people, not some commie prosecutor.

The gov't could make littering a life sentence.

A lot might depend on what one is littering. Spent brass from a Class III might get you jewelry & a ride. :uhoh:

Could have been a lot worse

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior

utbagpiper

Banned

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior

utbagpiper

Banned

davidmcbeth

Banned

utbagpiper

Banned

utbagpiper

Banned

fozzy71

Regular Member

marshaul

Campaign Veteran

davidmcbeth

Banned

rightwinglibertarian

Regular Member

DanM

Regular Member

Citizen

Founder's Club Member

utbagpiper

Banned

taxman

Banned

HPmatt

Regular Member

BB62

Accomplished Advocate

davidmcbeth

Banned

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior