Fed up' liquor store owner shoots shoplifting suspect in the back

LindaB said:
She never shot a gun and apparently didn't know about the "kick" which poobably raised her aim high enough to hit him in the back. It does say he is recovering.
Click to expand...
Just a FYI: The "kick" does not change where the bullet goes. That is a myth. The bullet has left the barrel long before the "kick" (recoil). Look at this slow-motion video:
 

Win, you know the answer is yes. He, or the persona he has created for argumentive purposes, has spoken out many times as a gun owner. Old topic on this bb,
 
Sunny said:
Win, you know the answer is yes. He, or the persona he has created for argumentive purposes, has spoken out many times as a gun owner. Old topic on this bb,
Click to expand...


Well, since you seem to be an expert on me ....... please show me where i said so.

And BTW ..... My mother & father created me some 71 years ago.
 
Don't want to offend anyone but so glad I live in a country where guns are not prolific yet. However, protection for ones life is a no brainer whether from criminals or police. It is the interpretation and distortion of protection that get's lost. Just a thought. :unsure:
 
win231 said:
Just a FYI: The "kick" does not change where the bullet goes. That is a myth. The bullet has left the barrel long before the "kick" (recoil). Look at this slow-motion video:
Click to expand...
That is my understanding of the physics too but then I thought of those people who cannot press the button on a camera without cutting off someone's head because they cannot aim straight. Still, aiming at the floor and hitting him in the back is quite at shift.

Another thought. Was he still inside the store or outside? If he hadn't threatened anyone he would not have stolen anything until he exited the store. A small detail but very important in law, I would think.
 
Warrigal said:
That is my understanding of the physics too but then I thought of those people who cannot press the button on a camera without cutting off someone's head because they cannot aim straight. Still, aiming at the floor and hitting him in the back is quite at shift.

Another thought. Was he still inside the store or outside? If he hadn't threatened anyone he would not have stolen anything until he exited the store. A small detail but very important in law, I would think.
Click to expand...
An 88 year old would probably not have very good eyesight & maybe a less-than-steady hand. As an inexperienced shooter, she probably jerked the trigger, which moves the whole gun, drastically changing the point of impact. If the media report was accurate, she was using a Double Action Revolver, which requires even more skill to shoot accurately because the trigger pull is 12-14 lbs.
And legally, the only justification for using deadly force is if she can prove she was in danger of serious bodily injury or death. If he was charging at her, that would probably do it, but if he was running away with stolen items, she's in trouble. On the other hand, her age would probably be a big factor in her sentence - IF she was found guilty a crime.
 
Instead of killing someone, maybe Boyce should have gotten a camera system, and leave all the cameras in plain sight. And when theft is detected, she should be willing to prosecute. It has been a gripe of law enforcement, that store owners will not follow through with the prosecution of shoplifters.
One thing that amazes me is that some, who rail that shoplifting is a "crime", don't seem to feel the gunning down an unarmed shoplifter is also a "crime". I get that shoplifting definitely affects the bottom line, and yes, it definitely is a crime. But how do you go from attempting to stop pilfering, to the point that killing people is perfectly acceptable.
 
Keesha said:
Yes, along with allegedly using counterfeit money.
Click to expand...
And just like crooked cops, her story tells of two tales.
fuzzybuddy said:
Instead of killing someone, maybe Boyce should have gotten a camera system, and leave all the cameras in plain sight. And when theft is detected, she should be willing to prosecute. It has been a gripe of law enforcement, that store owners will not follow through with the prosecution of shoplifters.
One thing that amazes me is that some, who rail that shoplifting is a "crime", don't seem to feel the gunning down an unarmed shoplifter is also a "crime". I get that shoplifting definitely affects the bottom line, and yes, it definitely is a crime. But how do you go from attempting to stop pilfering, to the point that killing people is perfectly acceptable.
Click to expand...
That's society for you today, Fuzzy, human life has become disposable, just like everything else, and it's reflected in the actions of those like Boyce.

May karma pay her back in spades.
 
fuzzybuddy said:
Instead of killing someone, maybe Boyce should have gotten a camera system, and leave all the cameras in plain sight. And when theft is detected, she should be willing to prosecute. It has been a gripe of law enforcement, that store owners will not follow through with the prosecution of shoplifters.
One thing that amazes me is that some, who rail that shoplifting is a "crime", don't seem to feel the gunning down an unarmed shoplifter is also a "crime". I get that shoplifting definitely affects the bottom line, and yes, it definitely is a crime. But how do you go from attempting to stop pilfering, to the point that killing people is perfectly acceptable.
Click to expand...


It is perfectly acceptable when someone is attempting to steal from anyone. Ya don't want to get shot ? perhaps killed ? ......... don't steal. This isn't rocket science.

"the gunning down of an unarmed shoplifter "

So you'd be OK with shooting an armed shoplifter ?
 
fuzzybuddy said:
Instead of killing someone, maybe Boyce should have gotten a camera system, and leave all the cameras in plain sight. And when theft is detected, she should be willing to prosecute. It has been a gripe of law enforcement, that store owners will not follow through with the prosecution of shoplifters.
One thing that amazes me is that some, who rail that shoplifting is a "crime", don't seem to feel the gunning down an unarmed shoplifter is also a "crime". I get that shoplifting definitely affects the bottom line, and yes, it definitely is a crime. But how do you go from attempting to stop pilfering, to the point that killing people is perfectly acceptable.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression all stores do have security cameras... in some places they don't?
 
rgp said:
It is perfectly acceptable when someone is attempting to steal from anyone. Ya don't want to get shot ? perhaps killed ? ......... don't steal. This isn't rocket science.

"the gunning down of an unarmed shoplifter "

So you'd be OK with shooting an armed shoplifter ?
Click to expand...
What is "perfectly acceptable," according to you, rgp? Killing anyone who is attempting to steal? Or maybe a perfectly innocent person that you mistakenly think is attempting to steal? What if it was a kid, not too brilliantly stealing a toy or a can of soda, or a candy bar? Or maybe a very poor person who was genuinely hungry?

I just read a heartbreaking article in the paper written by a Black man who came home from work, only to be arrested by the police, who were waiting for him. He had supposedly stolen something. His face turned up on one of those face-recognition software systems, which matched the store's photo with an old picture of him on a driver's license. He spent 30 hours locked up in a filthy jail cell before being released. It turns out the the software is 100 times more likely to make mistakes with Asian and Black faces than with whites.

Angry as he is, he says he will recover, but will never be able to erase the image of being hauled off to jail in handcuffs from the minds of his little children, standing with his wife in the driveway.

Now, according to your logic, if one of those armed policemen decided to take him out right there and save everyone a lot of trouble, that would be OK?
 
Sunny said:
What is "perfectly acceptable," according to you, rgp? Killing anyone who is attempting to steal? Or maybe a perfectly innocent person that you mistakenly think is attempting to steal? What if it was a kid, not too brilliantly stealing a toy or a can of soda, or a candy bar? Or maybe a very poor person who was genuinely hungry?

I just read a heartbreaking article in the paper written by a Black man who came home from work, only to be arrested by the police, who were waiting for him. He had supposedly stolen something. His face turned up on one of those face-recognition software systems, which matched the store's photo with an old picture of him on a driver's license. He spent 30 hours locked up in a filthy jail cell before being released. It turns out the the software is 100 times more likely to make mistakes with Asian and Black faces than with whites.

Angry as he is, he says he will recover, but will never be able to erase the image of being hauled off to jail in handcuffs from the minds of his little children, standing with his wife in the driveway.

Now, according to your logic, if one of those armed policemen decided to take him out right there and save everyone a lot of trouble, that would be OK?
Click to expand...


So, using your logic [or lack of] we should just ignore everything, and let them all go ?

In the incident you sited ..... the system worked.
 
Amazing what some people consider "working!"

And what about my questions, rgp, about the "perfectly acceptable" reaction to seeing someone who might be stealing? In the scenarios I described, do you really think killing a person who might (or might not) be stealing is an appropriate action? By a civilian who happens to own a gun?

Right, let's do away with law and order, due process, trials, etc. Let's just have some more of that "perfectly acceptable" vigilante justice!
 
rgp said:
So, using your logic [or lack of] we should just ignore everything, and let them all go ?

In the incident you sited ..... the system worked.
Click to expand...
Heck no, the justice system should hire individuals just like yourself, who support the idea of shooting first and asking questions later.

What a top-notch world this would be then. Problem solved. Rolling eyes.
 
Aunt Marg said:
Heck no, the justice system should hire individuals just like yourself, who support the idea of shooting first and asking questions later.

What a top-notch world this would be then. Problem solved. Rolling eyes.
Click to expand...


Works for me .........I have no use for criminals ..... period.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top