[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by rivaridger1

Exactly where is the line to be drawn ? What " Crime " deserves what reaction ? Remember we are addressing crime and deliberate conscious acts. Suppose an unarmed 250 pound man and walks up to 110 pound senior lady and say "Give me your purse ". Is it an over reaction if she is armed and shoots that individual ? He is unarmed and simply directed her to hand over her purse. What if you come home some night and burglars are carrying out your big screen and they ignore your direction to cease that activity ? Instead of your big screen, what if it is something you have worked hard all your life to obtain and it can not be replaced ? Please explain when any " criminal " appears to be " reaching for something " why you should not react accordingly. Please also explain why there is a difference in this circumstance between a shoplifter, mugger, rapist, arsonist, murderer, racketeer, etc. If the answer is, there should be no reaction to a " non-violent " crime, do not all " nonviolent crimes " have the potential to turn violent when the criminal is confronted ? Is the answer to never confront anyone committing a non-violent crime ? What a wonderful society we would enjoy in that event.

.....confronted with a gun....

The shooter in this case over reacted.

[permanentvacation]

While we don't know all the details of this case, therefore it is difficult to pass judgement. However, imagine if after you purchase goods from a local Walmart and while walking to your car you are wrongly accused of shoplifting. Only to have a bystander acting as judge, jury, and executioner run up and shoot you in the name of do gooder justice. I'm thinking that would suck.

[Barefoot]

Originally Posted by ejp52

Once the bullet leaves the gun ,you own any results from said bullet.
Yes I support concealed carry, but this seems on face value over reaction.

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

The shooter in this case over reacted.

It seems like over reaction to me also.

[redwitch]

Originally Posted by rivaridger1

Exactly where is the line to be drawn ? What " Crime " deserves what reaction ? Remember we are addressing crime and deliberate conscious acts. Suppose an unarmed 250 pound man and walks up to 110 pound senior lady and say "Give me your purse ". Is it an over reaction if she is armed and shoots that individual ? He is unarmed and simply directed her to hand over her purse. What if you come home some night and burglars are carrying out your big screen and they ignore your direction to cease that activity ? Instead of your big screen, what if it is something you have worked hard all your life to obtain and it can not be replaced ? Please explain when any " criminal " appears to be " reaching for something " why you should not react accordingly. Please also explain why there is a difference in this circumstance between a shoplifter, mugger, rapist, arsonist, murderer, racketeer, etc. If the answer is, there should be no reaction to a " non-violent " crime, do not all " nonviolent crimes " have the potential to turn violent when the criminal is confronted ? Is the answer to never confront anyone committing a non-violent crime ? What a wonderful society we would enjoy in that event.

I can't imagine any piece of property being worth a human life -- my own, an innocent bystander or a bad guy. I wouldn't hesitate to protect another life, including a beloved pet but not property. Police always recommend giving a robber your wallet, keys, whatever property they may want. I've never heard of them recommending fighting, arguing or shooting someone while being robbed.

In this instance, so-called professionals (security guards) were handling the matter. The shooter was not an off-duty LEO but rather a civilian who decided to help out. A man was shot and killed. I've yet to hear whether the bad guy was in fact carrying, just that the shooter thought he might be reaching for a gun and that, so far, the shooter has not been charged with anything. It's possible the outcome could have been far more tragic had the civilian not interfered, but we'll never know. What we do know is a man was shot and killed for a bunch of diapers. Sorry, I don't see any excuse for this death. Diapers are not worth someone's life. Neither is your wallet, a television, your grandmother's heirloom brooch or any other piece of property.

[rivaridger1]

Pacifism in the face of crime. Worked great for the victims of the 9/11 airplane hijackings, did it not ? ( Excepting those brave individuals on the Pennsylvania flight who fought back but unfortunately died as well )

By the way a beloved pet is legally property.

[Bogie Shooter]

Not even close in comparison................

[dewilson58]

I carry, but I'm not going to run after someone stealing from Walmart............doesn't matter if it's diapers, jewelry, or a pizza. I'm not threaten, I'm letting the noise maker stay in my pocket.

Must be new math, it doesn't add up.

[rivaridger1]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

Not even close in comparison................

Pacifism once learned is not easily or readily unlearned. If you are taught to be meek and not resist in the face of crime " as long as no one gets hurt ", you are simply not able to respond in a situation when it can not be determined whether or not the criminal means you or your loved ones harm.

The original post deals with an occurrence wherein sufficient facts are not available to make sweeping judgements. We are all making suppositions, applying them to this situation, and then rendering opinions dealing with the appropriateness of the actions of everyone involved to determine right and wrong. The facts will eventually speak for themselves. Until they do I'll withdraw my original commentary in defense of the shooter.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by rivaridger1

Exactly where is the line to be drawn ? What " Crime " deserves what reaction ? Remember we are addressing crime and deliberate conscious acts. Suppose an unarmed 250 pound man and walks up to 110 pound senior lady and say "Give me your purse ". Is it an over reaction if she is armed and shoots that individual ? He is unarmed and simply directed her to hand over her purse. What if you come home some night and burglars are carrying out your big screen and they ignore your direction to cease that activity ? Instead of your big screen, what if it is something you have worked hard all your life to obtain and it can not be replaced ? Please explain when any " criminal " appears to be " reaching for something " why you should not react accordingly. Please also explain why there is a difference in this circumstance between a shoplifter, mugger, rapist, arsonist, murderer, racketeer, etc. If the answer is, there should be no reaction to a " non-violent " crime, do not all " nonviolent crimes " have the potential to turn violent when the criminal is confronted ? Is the answer to never confront anyone committing a non-violent crime ? What a wonderful society we would enjoy in that event.

Sorry, but I agree with those who view it as an over-reaction. A good yardstick might be this: Would a police officer shoot and kill a diaper thief??? Would a police officer shoot and kill your big screen TV thief???? I don't think so.

[rivaridger1]

But if the thief once confronted was reaching for a Gun ? Knife ? Crowbar ? Baseball bat ? Icepick ? We do not know the facts.

[redwitch]

Originally Posted by rivaridger1

But if the thief once confronted was reaching for a Gun ? Knife ? Crowbar ? Baseball bat ? Icepick ? We do not know the facts.

You're right, we don't know all the facts. We do know that the shooter was a bystander who decided to assist the Wal-Mart employee. The odds are that had he not got involved, there would have been no confrontation and no weapons fired. Wal-Mart employees are trained to go so far in apprehending a shoplifter. The normal course would have been to get the license plate number and give it to the police, not physically intercede in a three against one situation.

As I said previously, I'd have no qualms firing if a human were in danger. But I refuse to shoot someone for a non-living item. I'm glad you can justify putting a human life before a thing, I can't and won't.

[affald]

The guy should be given a metal and free shooting lessons. Four thugs all with extensive criminal records would/should all be dead.

[dewilson58]

Well, okay then.

[Barefoot]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Sorry, but I agree with those who view it as an over-reaction. A good yardstick might be this: Would a police officer shoot and kill a diaper thief??? Would a police officer shoot and kill your big screen TV thief???? I don't think so.

Originally Posted by redwitch

We do know that the shooter was a bystander who decided to assist the Wal-Mart employee. The odds are that had he not got involved, there would have been no confrontation and no weapons fired. Wal-Mart employees are trained to go so far in apprehending a shoplifter. The normal course would have been to get the license plate number and give it to the police, not physically intercede in a three against one situation.

Makes sense to me.

[affald]

The media will never openly release the facts that make the shooting more justified