Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 27

Thread: Would you have opened fire in this situation? Armed Shopper Opens Fire at Walgreens.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8

    Would you have opened fire in this situation? Armed Shopper Opens Fire at Walgreens.


  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member thebigsd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Quarryville, PA
    Posts
    3,543
    Really not enough information to say either way. If he shot at them because they hit his car then no. If he shot at them because someone was in danger of imminent death or bodily harm then maybe. From the news story it sounds like they were fleeing when he shot at them...
    "When seconds count between living or dying, the police are only minutes away."

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    The information is scant, but based solely on what we know from the story, NO.

    The threat was ended. Firing on the escaping car was high-risk, near-zero-reward. One has to wonder why the shopper fired on the car. Was she stopping an imminent threat? Was she angry? Was she exacting retribution? The first would be legal, but is unlikely. The last two are illegal in almost every jurisdiction. I will leave it to the folks in Florida to discuss whether or not their laws allow citizens to use deadly force on fleeing felons. I doubt it does.

  4. #4
    Regular Member SFCRetired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Montgomery, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,770
    Confusing story. The first paragraph labels them as "armed robbers". Then it makes them sound like they were just common shoplifters.

    If they were, in fact, armed robbers, the shooting would probably be justified as stopping a fleeing felon, but IANAL. I wouldn't take the shot.

    If they were just shoplifters who fled and happened to hit his car, he was not justified in shooting. Now, if he happened to be standing by his car and thought they were trying to run him down, that is another situati

  5. #5
    Regular Member We-the-People's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    White City, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    2,234
    Perhaps the fact that there wre three armed men and after they got into their car they hit THREE cars had just a tinsy bit of influence?

    It's a poorly written story, sparse on details, hard to read to to errors in the use of the English language, and simply not enough to go on.
    "The Second Amendment speaks nothing to an unfettered Right". (Post # 100)
    "Restrictions are not infringements. Bans are infringements.--if it reaches beyond Reasonable bans". (Post # 103)
    Beretta92FSLady
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...ons-Bill/page5

    Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, nothing in any of my posts should be considered legal advice. If you need legal advice, consult a reputable attorney, not an internet forum.

  6. #6
    Regular Member 45acpForMe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Yorktown, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    2,803
    Agreed, scant information makes it hard to say any shot was appropriate.

    I was very surprised that the article didn't lambast the shooter. It almost sounds like they were patting the shooter on the back for taking his best shot at the fleeing shoplifters.

    I would think if the shooter was arrested by police the article would say something.

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran Schlitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,567
    Shoplifting shampoo and a bag of M&Ms? well.....F*#&ING KILL THEM!!!!!! lol

    all jokes aside we don't know if we was heading to his vehicle and maybe they drove toward him, hence they HIT HIS CAR. we really don't know. I don't want to make up stories to defend them just in case they were in the wrong. Seeing as we are led to believe they were driving away, nah I wouldn't have shot. Am I glad someone did? Sure, I'm totally down for armed criminals who put peoples lives in danger getting blown away, it's just in most places in this country that is illegal and I'm not going to jail for shooting someone in a non life/death situation. A firearm is our LAST RESORT to saving ourselves from threat of life or bodily injury.

    In summation, running out chasing the criminals as if you were the cop when the threat has ended and your life/body are not in harms way does not justify the shooting.
    “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.”
    [Miller vs. U.S., 230 F. Supp. 486, 489 (1956)]
    “There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of constitutional rights.”
    [Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F2d. 946 (1973)]

  8. #8
    Regular Member chcknhawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Central Texas
    Posts
    8
    The story is very vague. What pops out at me is the phrase "pair of armed bandits". Depending on the situation, I may or may not have shot at them. However, if I knew them to be armed, I may have tried to disable the car to buy time for police to arrive.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mountain Home, Arkansas, United States
    Posts
    400
    Was the citizen arrested? Enough said.

    It doesn't matter what we think. If the Officers on sean think it was justified then who am I to say other wise when all I have is just a few sentences.

  10. #10
    Regular Member sraacke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Saint Gabriel, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    1,222
    No I would not have fired. The robbers left the store. There is no reason for a customer to pursue and fire on them. Call 911, give a detailed discription to the police and let them make the arrest.
    President/ Founding Member
    Louisiana Open Carry Awareness League
    www.laopencarry.org

  11. #11
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,627
    Quote Originally Posted by yale View Post
    No I would not have fired. The robbers left the store. There is no reason for a customer to pursue and fire on them. Call 911, give a detailed discription to the police and let them make the arrest.
    I'm not in the jury pool, so no answer would be appropriate - details too scant anyway.
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958
    Lousy reporting. Short on details... with the exception of 'armed'. That's a felony... and it's legit to shoot at 'armed' fleeing felons. ('Been there, done that... got the t-shirt) The legal reasoning being that such are a direct threat to the public. Unk if the 'citizen' hit 'em... or what calibre gun it was. The citizen didn't get arrested so it seems to have been a good shoot.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by Packer fan View Post
    Was the citizen arrested? Enough said.

    It doesn't matter what we think. If the Officers on sean think it was justified then who am I to say other wise when all I have is just a few sentences.
    I don't think that the officers on the scene necessarily get it right. As a matter of fact, in the only interactions I have had with officers on the scene, they were decidedly wrong.

    Don't ever rely on LEOs to know the law. Some do. Too many don't.

  14. #14
    Regular Member Outdoorsman1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Silver Lake WI
    Posts
    1,249
    NO...!!!!!!!

    Outdoorsman1
    "On the Plains of Hesitation bleach the bones of countless millions who, at the Dawn of Victory, sat down to wait - and waiting, died."

    George Cecil (1891–1970) American advertising copywriter

    Outdoorsman1
    Member: Wisconsin Carry Inc.
    Member: Silver Lake Sportsmans Club
    Wisconsin C.C.W. License Holder
    Utah State Permit Holder.
    Arizona State Permit Holder.

  15. #15
    Regular Member Orion's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Detroit
    Posts
    108
    Story is very short on details. From what is written, no, I would not take the shot.

  16. #16
    Regular Member azpilot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Maricopa, AZ
    Posts
    6
    Woohoo first post...

    Based on that information alone.. No

    He hit a car, that wouldn't have put me in any type of situation that would have threatened my life.

  17. #17
    Regular Member SovereignAxe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Elizabethton, TN
    Posts
    795
    based on the information given in the story, no. Nobody's life was in danger, and like someone said, to kill someone over some shampoo and m&ms? The most valuable thing in a Walgreen's is probably either the electric toothbrushes or the high dollar perfume.

    If I knew that they'd held up the place or had done something violent in the store, it would be a different story. But no, I'm not going to shoot someone over shoplifting.

  18. #18
    Regular Member frommycolddeadhands's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Knob Noster, MO
    Posts
    451
    What were they trying to shoplift from Walgreens, Pez dispensers?!

    And apparently whatever they decided to shoplift required 2 armed men and a getaway car....and smashing into 3 other cars in a panicked escape? That's the most dramatic shoplifting incident I've ever heard of.

    Sounds more like a botched armed robbery.
    God is the one driving this stagecoach, I'm just riding shotgun.

  19. #19
    Regular Member ColeMD17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    CdA, Idaho
    Posts
    68
    Yeah, I'm gonna agree with most people here. Not enough details, but I most likely would not have taken the shot, unless they had done something violent in the store.

    It would suck that they get to steal stuff, damage my car, and just drive off-and I get stuck with the burden of having to repair my vehicle... but still not justification to shoot. (let's be honest with ourselves, these guys aren't getting caught. Not for this, anyway.)

    Although.... a few bullet holes in the trunk, or a shot out tire DOES make it easier for the cops to pick them out and catch them.... Not that that's a reason to justify a shooting but still, it's something to think about. should you be able to deploy a firearm as a tool for that purpose if you reasonably judged that you could do so without causing undue risk to human life?
    "Molon Labe."

    "People sleep peacably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

  20. #20
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164
    Quote Originally Posted by ColeMD17 View Post
    Yeah, I'm gonna agree with most people here. Not enough details, but I most likely would not have taken the shot, unless they had done something violent in the store.
    Hi Cole, it is my understanding that the shooter was outside and did not see what had transpired inside - still not enough info to take the shot, here too.

    Quote Originally Posted by ColeMD17 View Post
    It would suck that they get to steal stuff, damage my car, and just drive off-and I get stuck with the burden of having to repair my vehicle... but still not justification to shoot. (let's be honest with ourselves, these guys aren't getting caught. Not for this, anyway.)
    Cole, some of this depends on what your states' Citizen's Right to Arrest statute sets forth. In most states, a citizen has the right to arrest under certain circumstances and also the right to use deadly force ... but it is a very narrowly defined set and you might want to look up the statute for your state and see what limitations you have.

    Quote Originally Posted by ColeMD17 View Post
    <snip some stuff> should you be able to deploy a firearm as a tool for that purpose if you reasonably judged that you could do so without causing undue risk to human life?
    No! Absolutely not under any state law for civilian carry at this time. Not even law enforcement can do this without very compelling RAS.

    Now, as a goal to legislation and normalizing the uses for handguns, that is something that might be looked into for the future ... but, let me ask you this ... how many folks do you know that you would want to be able to do this whenever they thought it a good idea? It is a bit of a slippery slope and there are pros and cons that I am not sure just any 'joe citizen' should be making that decision when it might affect my life. OK, it's a BIG slippery slope
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Spring City, Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    9
    Based solely on the information given in the story.... No, this was not a justified shoot.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Savage206's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Lexington, KY
    Posts
    53
    absolutely not. Based on the article the guy that opened fire should have criminal charges brought against him. Had he seen them pointing their firearm at someone that is a different question but based on the info from this article they were on their way out and the threat was over....at that point be a good witness.....not sure what that guy was thinking....
    Last edited by Savage206; 08-14-2011 at 10:11 PM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member ColeMD17's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    CdA, Idaho
    Posts
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by okboomer View Post
    Hi Cole, it is my understanding that the shooter was outside and did not see what had transpired inside - still not enough info to take the shot, here too.
    yeah. definitely a no shoot then.


    Quote Originally Posted by okboomer View Post
    Cole, some of this depends on what your states' Citizen's Right to Arrest statute sets forth. In most states, a citizen has the right to arrest under certain circumstances and also the right to use deadly force ... but it is a very narrowly defined set and you might want to look up the statute for your state and see what limitations you have.
    Yeah, in my state, you can perform a citizen's arrest on a person, whom you have witnessed in the commission of a misdemeanor, or when you know the person has committed a felony. You must communicate intent to perform an arrest, and tell them what crime they are being arrested for. You're then authorized to use (only) as much force as is reasonable and necessary to restrain them and immediately deliver/turn them over to a peace officer or magistrate.

    Quote Originally Posted by okboomer View Post
    No! Absolutely not under any state law for civilian carry at this time. Not even law enforcement can do this without very compelling RAS.

    Now, as a goal to legislation and normalizing the uses for handguns, that is something that might be looked into for the future ... but, let me ask you this ... how many folks do you know that you would want to be able to do this whenever they thought it a good idea? It is a bit of a slippery slope and there are pros and cons that I am not sure just any 'joe citizen' should be making that decision when it might affect my life. OK, it's a BIG slippery slope
    Oh, I definitely know it would be frowned upon under current law. I was just asking for opinions, like you said, for in the future. I know it's a tricky question, I don't even claim to know the best answer myself, which is why I wanted to expose it for debate. definite pros and cons to allowing that kind of behavior. It could lead to catching the guy, or even better, preventing his escape in the first place! You don't want armed and dangerous suspects out on the lam. but on the other hand, you don't want armed and dangerous suspects anywhere near you, either, not to mention when they haven't consummated the commission of their current crime! (plus, obviously, anytime you fire your weapon poses a risk in itself. that fact weighs in, too.) maybe it's better to let them get away? either way could turn out worse than the other. who knows? flip a coin.
    "Molon Labe."

    "People sleep peacably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

  24. #24
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Lenexa, Kansas
    Posts
    423
    In my opinion there is not enough information here in front of me to make a justified response to the question. Basically if this is all we had information wise on a shooting....we be in a very hairy legal mess. Running into vehicles in a parking lot, or even running into mine does not justify a reason for me to shoot at the suspects. The chances of hitting innocent people around you is WAY too high to consider to open fire. Some of you may disagree and ignite the flame on how shooting them is legally justified in reason. But like I said too risky to be harming innocent civilians around you and too risky to start a legal battle for yourself.
    Nothing better than a Glock.........except maybe another Glock!

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    6
    From the information ive read, no i dont think i would open fire, not even draw my sidearm. If they were armed and threatening lives, then yes. From what i read though, they were just shop lifters who booked it in a car.

    It seems to me, drawing and firing only would create panic amonst everyone present and possibly put other people at risk.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •