Vigilante Gun Owner Opens Fire On Shoplifter In Home Depot Parking Lot

[Nice Squirrel]

Also, doesn't Batman not use guns?

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/UsefulNotes/TheComicsCode
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DoesntLikeGuns

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

People imagine all kinds of stupid shit that isn't there. This dingbat bitch thought she was Elliot fucking Ness or Batman and was gonna save Metropolis from crime to the accolades of her fellow citizens. Stupid moron.

If she was Batman, she'd have a cool car to chase them down.
Also, doesn't Batman not use guns?

Batman doesn't miss. Shows what you know. Batman would have done a Kung Fu number on the perp.

 

[ksen]

So, according to the quote you provided, the parking lot was filled with customers coming and going which means this idiot with a gun put all of them in danger... over power tools.

I am not saying what she did was right, I was just correcting Squirrel's mistaken assumption that it was a petty theft (<$200) when in fact it was felony theft (>$1,000).

So not only is she a quick draw but she's also a Price is Right superstar that can accurately assess the value of powertools as they're being trundled away by the shoplifters?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

So, according to the quote you provided, the parking lot was filled with customers coming and going which means this idiot with a gun put all of them in danger... over power tools.

I am not saying what she did was right, I was just correcting Squirrel's mistaken assumption that it was a petty theft (<$200) when in fact it was felony theft (>$1,000).

Correct, the exact value was not known and would be needed for the insurance report. We need more people to gun down people they suspect of any crime. Only then will our actuaries have the figures they need and we can finally be safe from gun violence.

 

[RavenSky]

No, it means it wasn't petty theft. Please try to pay attention to the claims I was debunking.

- - - Updated - - -

And this matters to the conversation why?

It was important enough to Nice Squirrel to claim that the theft was "petty". Yet I am a bad guy for correcting his mistake?

You are nit-picking a non-existant point. Move on

 

[Derec]

Yeah, he says this:

But then he does this:

Applies to our felony thieves, doesn't it?

So I guess Batman does sometimes use guns.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

No, it means it wasn't petty theft. Please try to pay attention to the claims I was debunking.

I've edited my comment, I'm not as sharp right after waking up, so I have that excuse.

 

[Derec]

You are nit-picking a non-existant point. Move on

Would have moved on long time ago had you not decided to get your panties in a bunch over this.

 

[RavenSky]

You are nit-picking a non-existant point. Move on

Would have moved on long time ago had you not decided to get your "panties in a bunch" over this.

you, Derec, are the one who got YOUR panties in a bunch by trying to derail the thread with your nit-pick about the dollar amount of the theft. You are doing it again with your "jokes" about batman, and still again with your typical anti-female language towards me.

Was going to write a bit more, but I deleted it as being unnecessarily nasty towards you. I suggest you show the same restraint and move the fuck on.

 

[fast]

You are nit-picking a non-existant point. Move on

Would have moved on long time ago had you not decided to get your panties in a bunch over this.

Ya gotta learn to play nice every once in awhile. You're not the bad guy because of an irrelevant correction. You need a date bad.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

- - - Updated - - -

So I guess Batman does sometimes use guns.

 

[Terrell]

I think that she should not have fired on the suspects in this circumstance. While the suspects, if proven guilty, deserve prison time. I don't think they posed a sufficient threat to justify shooting them, without more information. I think she should have instead used a cell phone camera, the video or pictures might actually be useful in prosecuting the suspects.

 

[RavenSky]

I think that she should not have fired on the suspects in this circumstance. While the suspects, if proven guilty, deserve prison time, I don't think they posed a sufficient threat to justify shooting them, without more information. I think she should have instead used a cell phone camera, the video or pictures might actually be useful in prosecuting the suspects.

^^^ that exactly. Maybe if she had snap a picture of the vehicle's license plate too.

 

[TSwizzle]

What a lunatic. I hope her conceal and carry permit is revoked after this.

 

[Derec]

You need a date bad.

Be that as it may, we both know that that's not gonna happen.

- - - Updated - - -

I suggest you show the same restraint and move the fuck on.

When you baselessly accuse me of "anti woman language" and derailing? Since when is correcting a factual mistake by a poster a "derail"?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

It's Not About the Crime, It's About the Criminality of the Toxic Social Element

The incident occurred Tuesday afternoon at a Home Depot parking lot in Auburn Hills, Michigan. Store security chased the alleged shoplifter as he jumped into an SUV that was waiting to help him flee. According to the Detroit Free Press, that’s when a 48 year-old woman drew a gun and began firing shots at the vehicle.

The woman, who has a license to carry a concealed firearm, is reportedly “cooperating with police.”

If this wannabe Dirty Harry were an actual cop, she almost certainly would have violated the Constitution. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Tennessee v. Garner, law enforcement may not use deadly force “unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”
Based on publicly available information, there’s no indication that the fleeing man, who allegedly stole power tools and welding equipment, presented a sufficient threat to the public to justify the use of deadly force.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...fire-on-shoplifter-in-home-depot-parking-lot/

The Second Amendment obliges gunowners to act for "the security of a free state." Criminals are enemies of the human race who violate that security. Whether they immediately threaten lives doesn't matter. They must be eliminated.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So, according to the quote you provided, the parking lot was filled with customers coming and going which means this idiot with a gun put all of them in danger... over power tools.

I am not saying what she did was right, I was just correcting Squirrel's mistaken assumption that it was a petty theft (<$200) when in fact it was felony theft (>$1,000).

The term was "suspect of *insert crime*". For all that woman knew, the guy could have violently assaulted someone in the store. Could have also been mistaken for a guy that stole something. What matters is that the woman doesn't have a clue what was going on and shouldn't be shooting a gun.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think that she should not have fired on the suspects in this circumstance. While the suspects, if proven guilty, deserve prison time. I don't think they posed a sufficient threat to justify shooting them, without more information. I think she should have instead used a cell phone camera, the video or pictures might actually be useful in prosecuting the suspects.

Also, if we are legally bound by law to allow thieves who are not posing injury to walk away with our possessions, the law should also compensate us for these losses. And I don't mean the insurance companies, I mean it ought to write us a check for our losses, no deductibles, no hassle.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...fire-on-shoplifter-in-home-depot-parking-lot/

The Second Amendment obliges gunowners to act for "the security of a free state." Criminals are enemies of the human race who violate that security. Whether they immediately threaten lives doesn't matter. They must be eliminated.

Except that she doesn't know if that person is a threat to security. What you said didn't say "what you think may harm the security of a free state."

 

[Nice Squirrel]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/20...fire-on-shoplifter-in-home-depot-parking-lot/

The Second Amendment obliges gunowners to act for "the security of a free state." Criminals are enemies of the human race who violate that security. Whether they immediately threaten lives doesn't matter. They must be eliminated.