Thief Steals Case of Beer. Shop Owner Shoots Him.....

[SteelSlapper]

Thief Steals Case of Beer. Shop Owner Shoots Him. Thief Goes Free. Shop Owner Gets Arrested.

According to the report, Parmar faces charges of assault with a deadly weapon and is still behind bars. He faces four years in prison. Police told the station it’s up to the district attorney to file theft charges Against Driggers, who was treated and released at a local hospital.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/thief-t ... s-arrested

[B Cart]

I might get some heat for this, but I think the shop owner was completely in the WRONG to shoot the guy. You cannot use deadly force to protect property.
According to the article, the thief grabbed the beer and walked out of the store and then the shop owner then shot the guy as he was walking away. That is a BAD shoot in my opinion. It sounds like the thief was not threatening anyone with bodily harm or death, and stealing a case of beer is not a felony, so using deadly force to stop the guy is NOT justified under the law.

It sounds to me like this was not a case of self defense, but a case of the store owner taking out his frustration of being robbed again. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not at all on the side of the thief, and I think he should be punished according to his crime, but I absolutely don’t think this was a good shoot at all, and I can understand why the store owner is doing jail time for the shooting.

People who carry a gun need to realize that just because you have a firearm and a permit, doesn’t mean you can just shoot someone for a dumb reason. If you are in immediate threat of bodily harm or death, then absolutely use your firearm to defend yourself or others. If someone is stealing a case of beer from your store, call the police and be a good witness. A case of beer is not worth killing someone over, whether you go to jail or not.

[bagpiper]

Bcart beat me to it. Taking the article at face value, and assuming that the shooting didn't happen in some split second of legitimate fear for life from a man the shop-keeper thought was armed before the thief turned to flee, it looks like a bad shoot to me as well.

Unarmed theft, from a commercial establishment currently open for business, no force, no obvious or overt threat to life or limb, and a fairly low dollar amount to boot. Looks to be a clear violation of use of deadly force laws to me.

That said, why the police have declined to arrest the thief and at least hold him for the 72 hours they are allowed until charges are brought looks like a bad exercise of discretion of their part.

That all said, I certainly sympathize with the store owner. It is obvious the cops do nothing to prevent theft and then almost nothing even after the fact. As a society we delegate to the government certain functions and then when they refuse to perform them, we get in trouble if we attempt to perform them ourselves.

Anyone who isn't upset by my assessment that this was most likely a bad shoot under current law will probably be upset when I say I'd be very open to considering changes to the law to permit expanded use of deadly force to defend property, as well as life and limb. After all, most of us trade portions of our life (some number of hours) for the money we use to buy our property. When a man steals my property what he is really stealing is that portion of my life that I have traded for that property. Obviously, we must always live within the confines of current law. But I think it is about time to have the conversation about what aspects of the law are due for a change. When decent people are scared and criminals operate with nearly absolute impunity, some changes to the social contract that is the law, seem to be in order.

Charles

[jktseug]

Anyone who isn't upset by my assessment that this was most likely a bad shoot under current law will probably be upset when I say I'd be very open to considering changes to the law to permit expanded use of deadly force to defend property, as well as life and limb. After all, most of us trade portions of our life (some number of hours) for the money we use to buy our property. When a man steals my property what he is really stealing is that portion of my life that I have traded for that property. Obviously, we must always live within the confines of current law. But I think it is about time to have the conversation about what aspects of the law are due for a change. When decent people are scared and criminals operate with nearly absolute impunity, some changes to the social contract that is the law, seem to be in order.
Charles

I agree that it would be nice if we were able to protect ourselves and our property, but equating it to part of our lives and hours, that could be questionable. What is to stop someone from shooting a salesman that just wouldn't say no, or leave them alone. If that person is intrusive they are causing you to lose time from your life that you could be doing something else.
There are a lot of reasons I can think of that I would want to protect myself. There are also a lot of things people can do that aren't something I would consider shooting someone for but are against the law and may give other people nightmares for quite a while.

[UtahJarhead]

There are situations where you CAN use deadly force to protect property.

76-2-402. Force in defense of person -- Forcible felony defined.
(1) (a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that force or a threat of force is necessary to defend the person or a third person against another person's imminent use of unlawful force.
(b) A person is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to the person or a third person as a result of another person's imminent use of unlawful force, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(2) (a) A person is not justified in using force under the circumstances specified in Subsection (1) if the person:
(i) initially provokes the use of force against the person with the intent to use force as an excuse to inflict bodily harm upon the assailant;
(ii) is attempting to commit, committing, or fleeing after the commission or attempted commission of a felony; or
(iii) was the aggressor or was engaged in a combat by agreement, unless the person withdraws from the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so and, notwithstanding, the other person continues or threatens to continue the use of unlawful force.
(b) For purposes of Subsection (2)(a)(iii) the following do not, by themselves, constitute "combat by agreement":
(i) voluntarily entering into or remaining in an ongoing relationship; or
(ii) entering or remaining in a place where one has a legal right to be.
(3) A person does not have a duty to retreat from the force or threatened force described in Subsection (1) in a place where that person has lawfully entered or remained, except as provided in Subsection (2)(a)(iii).
(4) (a) For purposes of this section, a forcible felony includes aggravated assault, mayhem, aggravated murder, murder, manslaughter, kidnapping, and aggravated kidnapping, rape, forcible sodomy, rape of a child, object rape, object rape of a child, sexual abuse of a child, aggravated sexual abuse of a child, and aggravated sexual assault as defined in Title 76, Chapter 5, Offenses Against the Person, and arson, robbery, and burglary as defined in Title 76, Chapter 6, Offenses Against Property.
(b) Any other felony offense which involves the use of force or violence against a person so as to create a substantial danger of death or serious bodily injury also constitutes a forcible felony.
(c) Burglary of a vehicle, defined in Section 76-6-204, does not constitute a forcible felony except when the vehicle is occupied at the time unlawful entry is made or attempted.
(5) In determining imminence or reasonableness under Subsection (1), the trier of fact may consider, but is not limited to, any of the following factors:
(a) the nature of the danger;
(b) the immediacy of the danger;
(c) the probability that the unlawful force would result in death or serious bodily injury;
(d) the other's prior violent acts or violent propensities; and
(e) any patterns of abuse or violence in the parties' relationship.

76-6-102. Arson.
(1) A person is guilty of arson if, under circumstances not amounting to aggravated arson, the person by means of fire or explosives unlawfully and intentionally damages:
(a) any property with intention of defrauding an insurer; or
(b) the property of another.
(2) A violation of Subsection (1)(a) is a second degree felony.
(3) A violation of Subsection (1)(b) is:
(a) a second degree felony if:
(i) the damage caused is or exceeds $5,000 in value; or
(ii) as a proximate result of the fire or explosion, any person not a participant in the offense suffers serious bodily injury as defined in Section 76-1-601;
(b) a third degree felony if:
(i) the damage caused is or exceeds $1,500 but is less than $5,000 in value;
(ii) as a proximate result of the fire or explosion, any person not a participant in the offense suffers substantial bodily injury as defined in Section 76-1-601; or
(iii) the fire or explosion endangers human life;
(c) a class A misdemeanor if the damage caused is or exceeds $500 but is less than $1,500 in value; and
(d) a class B misdemeanor if the damage caused is less than $500.

However, very clearly a case of beer doesn't fit this criteria!

[bltdonahue]

It's rather hard to run with a case of beer. It would have been a great opportunity to chase the thief down and beat the snot out of him to get your beer back. That much, at least, is typically legal.

[bagpiper]

I agree that it would be nice if we were able to protect ourselves and our property, but equating it to part of our lives and hours, that could be questionable. What is to stop someone from shooting a salesman that just wouldn't say no, or leave them alone. If that person is intrusive they are causing you to lose time from your life that you could be doing something else.

...

I see a material difference between someone stealing my property and a pushy salesman. I've personally never met anyone on whom I could not hang up, close the front door, or walk away. Any physical attempt to prevent me from walking away or closing my front door may very well justify a physical response (up to and including the use of deadly force in some cases) under current law.

Even so, there are a number of reasons one might pick to support a view that the law should allow (never require, of course, but allow) the use of deadly force to defend property in at least certain cases. Noting that loss of property might be equated to the loss of some portion of your life is but one of the more emotionally compelling reasons I can conceive. I'm also perfectly ok with, "You have no right to take someone else's property and if you attempt to do so, that person has the right to defend his property using whatever means are necessary to stop you. If a simple 'Stop' works, great. If not, he can tackle you, taser you, or put 15 rounds into your back as you run down the street carrying his TV or case of beer. If you don't want 15 rounds in your back, don't steal other people's stuff."

It is a little more harsh, but is ultimately the reason we allow use of deadly force to prevent rape, or other potential serious injury. We say the reason we allow use of deadly force in a home invasion is because of the presumption the bad guy intends harm, but really, we allow you to assume he intends harm so as to justify using deadly force to quickly end home invasions in most cases. Simply put, as a society we disapprove of certain conduct strongly enough that we allow victims to use deadly force against the criminal. I am not equating rape or home invasion to simple theft. I'm simply pointing out that as a society we can simply decide that certain criminal conduct is offensive or harmful enough that we will allow victims to respond more forcefully than we do currently. At one time horse theft was a hanging offense. Today it is not. What is to say that tomorrow it and many other forms of theft maybe shouldn't be again, or at least allow victims in the heat of the moment to use more force than the courts would be allowed to impose after the fact?

Charles

[manithree]

You cannot use deadly force to protect property.

Legally, you can in Texas http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/9.41.00.html

A case of beer is not worth killing someone over, whether you go to jail or not.

But, ethically, I agree with that 100%.

[divegeek]

There are situations where you CAN use deadly force to protect property.

76-2-402. Force in defense of person -- Forcible felony defined.
(1) (a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that force or a threat of force is necessary to defend the person or a third person against another person's imminent use of unlawful force.
(b) A person is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to the person or a third person as a result of another person's imminent use of unlawful force, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

This was theft, not robbery, but even if it were robbery, once the robber has taken the goods and is moving away, the crime is over and done with. The goods may be recovered, but the crime has already happened and cannot now be prevented, therefore there is no justification for shooting.

[jktseug]

...
Even so, there are a number of reasons one might pick to support a view that the law should allow (never require, of course, but allow) the use of deadly force to defend property in at least certain cases. Noting that loss of property might be equated to the loss of some portion of your life is but one of the more emotionally compelling reasons I can conceive. I'm also perfectly ok with, "You have no right to take someone else's property and if you attempt to do so, that person has the right to defend his property using whatever means are necessary to stop you. If a simple 'Stop' works, great. If not, he can tackle you, taser you, or put 15 rounds into your back as you run down the street carrying his TV or case of beer. If you don't want 15 rounds in your back, don't steal other people's stuff."
...
Charles

I think along the lines of more responsible gun owners = less violence. Being able to justify a shooting legally (morally it is another story, I have never had to shoot someone and hope I never have to) is a really strong deterrent. I understand both sides, but don't want to deal with people thinking they are a macho hero because they shot someone who was stealing food from the store to feed their family, or any other number of situations. It doesn't happen that way, and I would think most people (especially here) have more control. I like the thought of allowing more reasonable justification but I hope it wouldn't create too many cases like the article above. Loss of life is always sad. We justify the sadness of killing one person or sentencing them to life in prison by the sad and sickening things that they do and we see that as just cause.

[Hawk87]

I honestly don't agree with shooting people to defend property. Nothing I own is worth taking a life over. Shooting to defend someone's life or to stop bodily harm is one thing, I believe that when some one sets out to end someones life on purpose, they forfeit the right to their own. However I just don't see the moral justification to shoot some one over taking a tv.

[UtahJarhead]

I honestly don't agree with shooting people to defend property. Nothing I own is worth taking a life over. Shooting to defend someone's life or to stop bodily harm is one thing, I believe that when some one sets out to end someones life on purpose, they forfeit the right to their own. However I just don't see the moral justification to shoot some one over taking a tv.

I want to agree but I cannot. This isn't that situation but if someone is burning your land and the crops on that land and in the home on that land are the ONLY means by which to get food for my family, someone isn't going to have a very good time.

Granted, beer vs. survival again but still...

[divegeek]

I honestly don't agree with shooting people to defend property. Nothing I own is worth taking a life over. Shooting to defend someone's life or to stop bodily harm is one thing, I believe that when some one sets out to end someones life on purpose, they forfeit the right to their own. However I just don't see the moral justification to shoot some one over taking a tv.

I want to agree but I cannot. This isn't that situation but if someone is burning your land and the crops on that land and in the home on that land are the ONLY means by which to get food for my family, someone isn't going to have a very good time.

What you're saying, though, is not that you'd use deadly force to defend property, but that you'd use it to defend life. You're constructing a situation in which the property being lost/destroyed is essential to life.

But if loss of property doesn't lead to loss of life -- and honestly, it doesn't, except in extremely rare and strange situations -- then there's no justification for using deadly force in defense of property.

Deadly force should only be used to protect people from death or serious injury. Period. If one of those really rare and strange situations arise, then the defendant's attorney can explain in court how the defendant's action to defend property was the only reasonable way to protect life and limb.

[B Cart]

What you're saying, though, is not that you'd use deadly force to defend property, but that you'd use it to defend life. You're constructing a situation in which the property being lost/destroyed is essential to life.

But if loss of property doesn't lead to loss of life -- and honestly, it doesn't, except in extremely rare and strange situations -- then there's no justification for using deadly force in defense of property.

Deadly force should only be used to protect people from death or serious injury. Period. If one of those really rare and strange situations arise, then the defendant's attorney can explain in court how the defendant's action to defend property was the only reasonable way to protect life and limb.

+10. I think this sums up the property debate perfectly.

[The Armed Female]

In what state did this happen? (Sorry if I missed that detail) And where are the laws that are quoted from?