If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox 31 Denver)   Shop owner shoots shoplifter. Shoplifter sues, claiming "Dammit I was in the safe zone"   (on.kdvr.com) divider line 35
    More: Dumbass, safe zone, Shoplifter sues, shoplifting, liquor stores, owners  
•       •       •

13864 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Dec 2012 at 2:57 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-12-12 03:25:11 PM
6 votes:
Here's the problem....

Shop owner shoots some guy in the face. That guy has no money. I promise you that. Even still, lots of hard-working people, like the EMT and ambulance driver and doctors and janitors and everyone who makes the hospital possible are still going to treat him. We could easily be looking 20-100k in bills. Who will pay that?

Not the piece of trash criminal.
Not the shop owner.

Taxpayers.

And that sucks.

If they put this guy in jail, who pays for that?

Taxpayers.

As a taxpayer, there only *real* crime here, is that he didn't just kill the guy. Not only would there be less criminals on the street, I wouldn't have to shoulder the financial burden of some street thug who can't pay his bills.
2012-12-12 03:05:16 PM
4 votes:
People are going to say that "a bottle of booze isn't worth killing someone over". And it probably isn't looked at that way. However, the shoplifter should know that, in this country, shop clerks can be armed. Hell, a liquor store owner is MOST LIKELY armed. So, when he went in and stole from owner, the shoplifter knew there was a risk of being shot, and took the chance anyway. He decided that the bottle of vodka was worth risking his life over.
2012-12-12 02:48:30 PM
4 votes:
If you're gonna shoot, shoot to kill. A corpse isn't going to get up and sue your ass.

/amidoinitright?
2012-12-12 03:49:11 PM
3 votes:
So here's a question. He reaches into the back seat of the car, pulls out a rifle, and shoots the store owner. Clearly the store owner should just get shot, because we must protect the criminal!
Break the law, lose the protection of the law.
Those who see the laws as just a 'hindrance' to their fun are the rightful prey of those who follow the law.
2012-12-12 03:46:32 PM
3 votes:
Here's what I think:

If you are committing a crime, you surrender your civil rights. You invade others rights with your criminal activity, meaning you shouldn't have any of your own.

Ergo, you surrender your right to sue anyone. If you try, we get to beat you with boat paddles for an hour.
2012-12-12 03:14:36 PM
3 votes:

devildog123: People are going to say that "a bottle of booze isn't worth killing someone over". And it probably isn't looked at that way. However, the shoplifter should know that, in this country, shop clerks can be armed. Hell, a liquor store owner is MOST LIKELY armed. So, when he went in and stole from owner, the shoplifter knew there was a risk of being shot, and took the chance anyway. He decided that the bottle of vodka was worth risking his life over.


An occupational hazard of being a carpenter is you might hit your thumb with a hammer; for a nurse, you might get a needle stick. If you choose to be a felon you might get lead poisoning.

I know a guy who interrupted a burglary at his home. As he was pulling into his driveway, he saw a van backed up to his garage. One of the burglars ran towards him, aiming a pistol. My friend hit the gas pedal and ran the burglar over, killing him (he was not charged). When the cops got there, they advised him to put all of his assets into his baby son's name immediately, because he could count on the burglar's family suing him. And that's exactly what happened. The burglar's family (who swore he was a good boy, sang in the church choir, a star athlete and honor roll student who had a record a mile long) got nada.

/Gun-owning liberal with no tolerance for thieves.
2012-12-12 03:09:26 PM
3 votes:
Its not self defense if you're chasing them.
2012-12-12 02:33:29 PM
3 votes:

People like this steal because they know the worse they'll get out of it is a few hours in jail and maybe some probation...we need to use to use proper deterrents....


dailymull.com
2012-12-12 04:13:59 PM
2 votes:
Is a bottle of booze worth getting shot over? I don't think so, but that's a decision every thief should make for himself before he goes into the store.
2012-12-12 04:06:29 PM
2 votes:
DENVER - A shoplifter who was shot in the face after swiping a bottle of vodka from a Colorado Springs liquor store is now suing the store owner.

That's justification to shoot him again, IMO. The thug got shot once for stealing a bottle of liquor. Now he's trying to steal $100,000.

signaljammer: Utterly disproportionate. Liquor dealer has proven himself to be a menace to society.


The liquor dealer isn't a risk to society. He *is* a risk to thugs that steal from him. He isn't going to shoot me, because I'm going to pay for my liquor.
2012-12-12 03:36:56 PM
2 votes:

DaCaptain19: Mugato: I have no love for shoplifters and the gun people are going to call me every variation of the word liberal there is but he didn't deserve to get shot in the jaw over a bottle of hooch. I don't think he needs to sue though either.

I'm a gun owner, I'm not throwing the "L-word" around. Your argument is completely correct and is NOT a valid shooting by concealed-carry standards...UNLESS the vehicle was pointing directly at the clerk, which could be determined to be a threat and would validate the shooting.

The article doesn't specify that, either. It pretty much gives no detail to 100% call the shooting bad or good.

But...at the end of the day, you live by the sword you die by the sword. You chose your "profession" so don't cry about the consequences...even if they are over the top. You know..you bruise my heel so I crush your head? You slap my cheek, I f*ckin' shoot you in the groin. But you really should shoot to kill even though you never tell a cop you shot to kill, rather you shot to STOP the criminal.


I think the shooting was bad, which is why it went to a grand jury at all... but it's a snap judgement by a guy who is watching someone waltz out the front door with his livelihood. I can't begin to tell you how much being robbed/burglarized/shoplifted from hurts when you're a small business owner... you give up breakfast and lunch so you can afford a bit more product when you're starting up, and clowns like this think that they should be able to just take from you without any consequence.
2012-12-12 03:24:41 PM
2 votes:

Snarfangel: MacEnvy: Pocket Ninja: Non-story. Shooting a non-armed shoplifter for stealing a single bottle of alcohol is exercising responsible gun ownership, nothing more.

Who said he was unarmed? This article doesn't.

We know for a fact he was armed with a bottle.


Why did the shoplifter have the expectation that he wouldn't be shot?
2012-12-12 03:13:57 PM
2 votes:

devildog123: People are going to say that "a bottle of booze isn't worth killing someone over". And it probably isn't looked at that way. However, the shoplifter should know that, in this country, shop clerks can be armed. Hell, a liquor store owner is MOST LIKELY armed. So, when he went in and stole from owner, the shoplifter knew there was a risk of being shot, and took the chance anyway. He decided that the bottle of vodka was worth risking his life over.


Shoot him in the store, I'm fine with that, but once you start shooting OUTSIDE you put the entire public at risk, and personally, I'm not willing to get pegged walking down the street because you don't want your business to take a $5 loss. It's an unacceptable risk considering the marginal benefit it would allow. Charge him with unlawful or reckless discharge, mandatory gun safety class and be done with it.
2012-12-12 03:08:19 PM
2 votes:
I'm of mixed feelings.

I can reasonably see criminal charges into the shop owner; maybe reckless use of a deadly weapon or something along those lines.

But the fact remains, Mr. Shoplifter, is that you were a criminal committing a criminal act. No money or profit for you.
2012-12-12 11:31:39 AM
2 votes:
Non-story. Shooting a non-armed shoplifter for stealing a single bottle of alcohol is exercising responsible gun ownership, nothing more.
2012-12-12 04:44:08 PM
1 votes:
They're calling the driver the "getaway driver"? This isn't Reservoir Dogs. I doubt this was some heist that they planned ahead of time.

Listen gun nuts, a pissed off civilian running into the street shooting his gun at a car is not a good thing, I don't care how often you beat off to "Death Wish".
2012-12-12 04:28:15 PM
1 votes:
The shop owner should get a medal and some free range time so he can improve his marksmanship.

As for the shoplifter, well give him another complementary bullet.
2012-12-12 04:24:48 PM
1 votes:

Gordon Bennett: JackieRabbit: For those wondering if the perp had a gun ... had he a gun, it would have been armed robbery, not shoplifting.

If you shoplift a gun, does it become armed robbery once the gun is in your hand?


Only if you steal bullets, too
2012-12-12 04:18:48 PM
1 votes:

firefly212: you shouldn't get a free pass to kill a guy because he's insider trading some stocks


The hell I shouldn't.
2012-12-12 04:18:35 PM
1 votes:

Securitywyrm: Break the law, lose the protection of the law.


That's not how 'the law' works, at least not in the US. Even people breaking the law are still protected by the law.

This isn't a criminal case, it's a civil suit. The article makes it sound like the suit is for negligence, but that would be odd considering this was an intentional shooting, not an accidental one. The suit should be for an intentional tort, most likely battery.

There are any number of defenses to intentional torts, but only four that are likely to be relevant in a case like this:

Self defense.
Defense of others.
Defense of property.
Shopkeepers license.

None of those would apply in this situation (assuming the article accurately describes the facts). Self defense is allowed only when a person has a reasonable fear of imminent and serious bodily harm. Here, the shoplifter had already fled the scene of the crime and was posing no danger to the shopkeeper.

Defense of others is allowed when you come to act in defense of someone else who would normally be able to claim self defense. Nothing in the article suggests that the shoplifter was putting anyone else in imminent danger of serious bodily harm because he doesn't appear to have been armed, and he was already is a 'safe zone' (but for example, an armed robber fleeing on foot toward another person, you might be able to claim defense of others if you shot him in the back, because the person the robber was running toward would likely have had a reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm).

Deadly force is never allowed for defense of chattel property, and only rarely allowed for defense of real property. Whatever force that is used must be roughly proportional to the threat being dealt with. Also, the law will generally treat any use of a deadly weapon (like a gun) as deadly force, even if the person is only injured. Here, the shop owner was not defending real property, as the robber had already fled the store. The shop owner used deadly force (a gun) in an attempt to stop a property crime that was probably of roughly $10 in value.

Shopkeepers license is a rule that says that store owners (or their employees) may use reasonable force to detain a person the owner reasonably suspects (or in some states, has probable cause to believe) has stolen property. The analysis is similar the the analysis for defense of property, above. Here, the defense would fail because the force used in attempting to detain the shoplifter was not reasonable considering the seriousness (or lack thereof) of the crime. 

And for those who are wondering, I assume that the person stealing the Vodka was unarmed because the article refers to him as a 'shoplifter'. If he had used or brandished a weapon, it would have been a robbery, not a shoplifting.
2012-12-12 04:06:38 PM
1 votes:
To those of you claiming "ZOMG LIBERALS THINK THE CROOK SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN AWAY", er, are any of you actually reading the thread?

Most of those who also feel the shop owner is in the wrong haven't been expressing sympathy for the thief.

Here, I'll lay it out. The shop owner should be charged, because the thief was no longer a danger. Now, I don't think he should be charged because "he harmed the poor, non-dangerous thief", but because he discharged a firearm, in public, at a fleeing vehicle (Assuming it was fleeing, I admit, but since he hit a guy in the back seat, it probably was!), when there was no threat to himself or others at that point in time.

Which is farking dangerous I'm not sure if you realize it or not, but bullets do not have magical crime detecting powers that would cause them to veer away from bystanders if the guy missed, or ricocheted.

It's not so much "ZOMG, he put the thief's life in danger when he had no reason to!", it's "He kinda put other people's life potentially in danger when it was uncessary for him to do so." I thought the whole point of being a gun owner was, you know, knowing when it was safe and appropriate to fire your gun?
2012-12-12 03:57:10 PM
1 votes:
Stealing
Safe zone

Pick one. There is no ollie ollie oxen free in crime. It's a high risk occupation.
2012-12-12 03:48:42 PM
1 votes:
Count me in the "inappropriate application of deadly force" column. You start firing in public at some jackhole that is fleeing and all he has of yours is a bottle of alcohol, you've screwed up. The threat (apparently) had completely abated.

Now, does that mean the scumbag shoplifter has a case? Not necessarily. His jaw and speech would be just fine if he wasn't shoplifting.
2012-12-12 03:47:27 PM
1 votes:

Saruman_W: If jigaboo can't steal yo' shiat then he'll sue ya' for it.


-1/10
2012-12-12 03:47:15 PM
1 votes:
One of the available targets at the gun range I go to is "liquor store robber". I remember taking my girlfriend to the range for the first time. I showed her how to fire the gun and warned her not to hit the bystander on the target. My first shot, BAM. Right in the forehead of the bystander.

I sort of sheepishly handed her the gun. It's not that easy I guess.
2012-12-12 03:46:51 PM
1 votes:
Florida may be pretty farked up, but at least we have a law saying someone who is committing a crime is not allowed to sue for any injury sustained while in the act.

The shop owner did go a bit far with chasing him down and shooting while he was in the car and obviously attempting to flee.
2012-12-12 03:34:45 PM
1 votes:

TheYeti: Well, if they award the guy anything I hope that the shopkeeper subtracts the cost of the ammunition.


How about cost of ammunition, gun cleaning, bottle of hooch, and "service rendered?"
2012-12-12 03:32:06 PM
1 votes:

Mugato: I have no love for shoplifters and the gun people are going to call me every variation of the word liberal there is but he didn't deserve to get shot in the jaw over a bottle of hooch. I don't think he needs to sue though either.


I'm a gun owner, I'm not throwing the "L-word" around. Your argument is completely correct and is NOT a valid shooting by concealed-carry standards...UNLESS the vehicle was pointing directly at the clerk, which could be determined to be a threat and would validate the shooting.

The article doesn't specify that, either. It pretty much gives no detail to 100% call the shooting bad or good.

But...at the end of the day, you live by the sword you die by the sword. You chose your "profession" so don't cry about the consequences...even if they are over the top. You know..you bruise my heel so I crush your head? You slap my cheek, I f*ckin' shoot you in the groin. But you really should shoot to kill even though you never tell a cop you shot to kill, rather you shot to STOP the criminal.
2012-12-12 03:22:32 PM
1 votes:

MacEnvy: Pocket Ninja: Non-story. Shooting a non-armed shoplifter for stealing a single bottle of alcohol is exercising responsible gun ownership, nothing more.

Who said he was unarmed? This article doesn't.


FIrst, MacEnvy is completely correct. Also, from the article alone it doesn't say whether car was aimed at - or approaching - the clerk, which would constitute a threat and would be a valid shooting.

Second, they're not charging the robber with anything? WTF! Just another black career criminal. We have tons of these in Chicago...we need an exterminator for the entire south side.
2012-12-12 03:21:06 PM
1 votes:
Pardon me while I fail to give a sh*t.
2012-12-12 03:15:34 PM
1 votes:

Pocket Ninja: Non-story. Shooting a non-armed shoplifter for stealing a single bottle of alcohol is exercising responsible gun ownership, nothing more.


Having taken the concealed-carry course and having the license to carry, I would make two comments:

1. It is totally legitimate to shoot even an un-armed robber (there is a reasonable case that you are defending your own - OR someone else's [which counts!]) - even from behind in certain circumstances (say the thief has his back to you but is endangering the clerk).

2. It is NOT self-defense to shoot at a car driving away. There is no case for personal threat, period.

Having said that, this POS doesn't deserve a dime. He decided to get on the bull, now he can take the horns. F*ck him.
2012-12-12 03:08:02 PM
1 votes:

Friskya: If you're gonna shoot, shoot to kill. A corpse isn't going to get up and sue your ass.

/amidoinitright?


Yes.
Like that chick that stole from a Walmart and got shot in the neck; although in this case, the thief wasn't trying to run the owner over, but still... the guy wouldn't have got shot if he didn't try to steal. Think it through a little better next time.
2012-12-12 03:07:28 PM
1 votes:
All this for a bottle of vodka.

Solution: Don't steal.
2012-12-12 11:38:07 AM
1 votes:
" pursued Dewberry out of the store with a loaded .357 revolver. Dewberry was hit while in the backseat of a getaway car."

The shop owner went to far. I'd be okay if he shot him in the store, but chasing him down isn't very smart.
2012-12-12 11:34:12 AM
1 votes:

Pocket Ninja: Non-story. Shooting a non-armed shoplifter for stealing a single bottle of alcohol is exercising responsible gun ownership, nothing more.


Who said he was unarmed? This article doesn't.
 
Displayed 35 of 35 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report