Customer fires at Auburn Hills shoplifting suspects

[JulesMaximus]

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/ne...ing-suspect-auburn-hills-home-depot/73467882/

Auburn Hills — Police responding to a “shots fired” call at a Home Depot store said a customer apparently tried to stop a shoplifter by firing at a fleeing vehicle.


The incident occurred at 2 p.m. at the store on Joslyn, according to a police press release.


A 47- year-old Clarkston woman in the parking lot witnessed one of the store’s loss prevention officers trying to stop a shoplifting suspect getting into a dark colored SUV. The customer — identified as a concealed pistol license holder — reportedly fired shots at the dark-colored SUV as it sped out of the lot.


It’s unknown how many rounds were fired from her 9mm handgun, but police believe she hit and flattened one of the vehicle’s rear tires as it sped off in the direction of Brown Road.


It was not known if anyone was injured in the incident. The customer remained on the scene and was cooperating with police. A report is to be turned over to the county prosecutor for review of possible charges, if any, on the woman.


The shoplifters were identified as a man in his 40s, who was driving the vehicle, and a man in his mid-40s wearing a black shirt with yellow writing and a black baseball cap. The second man is believed to have run out of the store with a large box of unknown content or value, police said.


The incident remains under investigation. Anyone with information on the incident or the suspects is asked to call police at (248) 370-9444.

I certainly hope she is charged and her CCW permit revoked.

Who the hell starts shooting at an SUV in a public place over a possible shoplifting?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

This is the problem you run into when you have easy access to guns, glorification of solving problems using guns, and political rhetoric that unequivocally states that good guys with guns can help stop crimes. You get some average schmo thinking she's John McClane taking out terrorists by firing at a fleeing vehicle in public over some stolen goods. It's delusion writ large, codified in law and backed by the bulk of our culture. I'm not anti-gun, but I am anti-idiot, and the fact that an idiot like this can obtain a gun in our country signifies that something is seriously wrong with the methods we're taking to license gun owners.

 

[HomerJS]

gun culture

 

[thraashman]

gun culture

Apparently we need a good guy with a gun to protect us from stupider good guys with guns. Then we can all just start shooting anyone we think deserves it. The whole time the terrorist organization known as the NRA will find a way to blame minorities and convince scared conservative white people to buy 3 more guns each.

 

[soundforbjt]

This is the problem you run into when you have easy access to guns, glorification of solving problems using guns, and political rhetoric that unequivocally states that good guys with guns can help stop crimes. You get some average schmo thinking she's John McClane taking out terrorists by firing at a fleeing vehicle in public over some stolen goods. It's delusion writ large, codified in law and backed by the bulk of our culture. I'm not anti-gun, but I am anti-idiot, and the fact that an idiot like this can obtain a gun in our country signifies that something is seriously wrong with the methods we're taking to license gun owners.

Not to mention this idiot obtained a concealed carry permit .

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I was assured in my thread on the car-jacking "witness" that this kind of behavior was impossible for a c&c holder.

 

[Ackmed]

Not to mention this idiot obtained a concealed carry permit .

Not every state differentiates between the two. Mine doesn't. I have a carry permit, which I can carry outside or concealed.

 

[theeedude]

Gun nuts are always looking for an excuse to shoot someone. We should be happy she didn't fire at people for speeding.

 

[waggy]

ugh. this person should be arrested and have the CC pulled.

I am all for people having CC. sadly you are going ot have idiots like this that will claim "good shot".

shooting over shoplifting? i hope there is more to the story.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

ugh. this person should be arrested and have the CC pulled.

I am all for people having CC. sadly you are going ot have idiots like this that will claim "good shot".

shooting over shoplifting? i hope there is more to the story.

Of course there's more. Like how all up until this incident this was one of those "responsible gun owners."

 

[Mxylplyx]

Of course there's more. Like how all up until this incident this was one of those "responsible gun owners."

Well now she's not a responsible gun owner and therefore her actions do not reflect on responsible gun owners. The revokation of said label can be backdated. The NRA said so.

 

[Moonbeam]

I remember when Mulla Nasrudin had his house broken into and his wife found him hiding in the closet. She demanded to know what he was doing there. Hiding from shame that I have nothing to steal, said the Mulla.

 

[soundforbjt]

Not every state differentiates between the two. Mine doesn't. I have a carry permit, which I can carry outside or concealed.

What has this got to do with the incident? She obviously learned nothing when she was taking her course to obtain the permit.

 

[SlowSpyder]

It depends on the state as far as law is concerned, but I think shooting someone over property theft isn't moral. I wouldn't use deadly force unless I honestly thought my or someone else's life was in danger. I am very pro-gun, but there are too many boneheads out there doing things like this.

 

[irishScott]

If you want stricter gun licensing then you have no one to blame but gun control advocates. For decades they put all their strength into irrational bullshit, many have clearly stated their agenda to disarm the US populace through legislation (which would fail miserably even if said legislation passed, but that doesn't stop them). To this day many see any person with a gun as a ticking time bomb, and cherry-pick stories to that effect.

Shockingly, gun owners don't trust these people with their self defense rights. Strict licensing would work great right up until a shooting causes enough panic to make it even stricter and turn it into a de-facto ban. Why shouldn't it? That's the agenda every single leader of a gun control advocacy group is visibly pressing for, at best they barely try to hide it. Given enough political capital they will fullfill that agenda. And because they've been pushing this pathetic lunacy for decades, we're never going to trust them. Maybe if they'd respected the opposition a little more instead of painting us all as hillbilly milita psychos we wouldn't have this problem.

Frankly it all sounds like whining to me. Gun control advocates were largely getting their way up until the internet and social media came along. Given the coverage of the recent Oregon shooting in major newspapers, it's easy to see why.


That said this woman was an idiot and I'd like to see her permit revoked and her charged for negligent discharge.

 

[waggy]

It depends on the state as far as law is concerned, but I think shooting someone over property theft isn't moral. I wouldn't use deadly force unless I honestly thought my or someone else's life was in danger. I am very pro-gun, but there are too many boneheads out there doing things like this.

nope not moral at all. I would even think you would find a very small portion of society to say it was.

I am ok with using force (even deadly force) to protect home and family. Even someone else's life. To me those are morally justified reasons.

When someone is fleeing? no. you lose the right to shoot. Then to shoot a fleeing shoplifter? fuck no now it should be criminal (well same wiht just fleeing mind you).


this person needs to be charged and her/his CC revoked. hell i would be ok with her not being able to own guns again.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

It depends on the state as far as law is concerned, but I think shooting someone over property theft isn't moral. I wouldn't use deadly force unless I honestly thought my or someone else's life was in danger. I am very pro-gun, but there are too many boneheads out there doing things like this.

This.

Is that what is referred to as "Stand your ground" sometimes? Usually it's for defending your own property, not someone elses... namely a huge corporate retailer's property :awe:




Anyhow...

This is just 100% stupidity at its finest. Apparently someone slept through training classes because I don't even have a CCW and I know that unless danger is running towards you, DO NOT USE THE F***ING GUN. Is Danger running away from you? That means put down your gun, idiot. You're firing at someone running away from you, hence, you have no present danger, hence, you shouldn't be using it.

 

[irishScott]

nope not moral at all. I would even think you would find a very small portion of society to say it was.

I am ok with using force (even deadly force) to protect home and family. Even someone else's life. To me those are morally justified reasons.

When someone is fleeing? no. you lose the right to shoot. Then to shoot a fleeing shoplifter? fuck no now it should be criminal (well same wiht just fleeing mind you).


this person needs to be charged and her/his CC revoked. hell i would be ok with her not being able to own guns again.

For me it's less about the property theft and more about the fleeing. If someone's trying to steal my car, I point my gun at them and command him to stop, he tells me to go fuck myself and continues breaking into my car, IMHO I should be able to shoot him. I might not if I figure it isn't worth the trouble (easier to deal with insurance than potentially a jury), but I should be able to.

It's the same principle as someone breaking into my house and stealing my TV. Perhaps after breaking in they identify themselves and shout they're just stealing my TV, and no one will be harmed. Shouldn't I still be allowed to shoot them, or do I just have to stand there and "escort" them at gun point as they take my TV and leave? Of course I can shoot them, because I'm under no obligation to believe the word of someone who just broke into my house, and anyone who will stare down a gun is capable of more than theft.

Now if they're fleeing then the threat has been dealt with and the gun has done its job, and there's no justification for force.

 

[umbrella39]

This is near my home and all I can say is that I am happy none of my family or friends were in that parking lot when Dirty Harriet was going trigger happy...

 

[trenchfoot]

"But-but-but I was just try'in to help."

And I'm supposed to trust all CC enabled folks because "they all had the training to certify them that they are responsible and safe to be around."

Yeh, when that moment arrives where life/death snap judgments are required, I don't care how much "training" a person has had. It's the person's character and previous experience that really counts. So how much of that is factored into deciding whether or not a person is qualified for CC or not?

In the unit I served in, there were guys that nobody wanted to share a fighting hole with even though we all had the same training. Those fuck-ups would get you killed to save their own skins. They got alienated really quick and justifiably so. Yet there were freak'in certifiable crazies that I wouldn't do without in a tight situation. Character. It's what really counts.

I don't see any difference in a domestic setting. Down at the ranges where I go there's always those idiots that lose their situational awareness and then proceed to put other people's lives in danger. And in my state, attending safety classes are mandatory for handgun ownership.

A lot of help that did.

That being said, sure, I had to get used to rules that were different or completely ignored in a combat setting, just like all the other guys who went through what we did. But there's no excusing folks who, even though they aren't psychotic or aren't harboring easily hidden tendencies that make them dangerous with firearms in hand, will consistently make bad judgments when under stress. Do CC classes really test one's ability to stay calm and make good calls in life threatening situations? Beats me, and correct me if I'm wrong, from what I know of them, they don't.

 

[Newell Steamer]

I am all for handguns & CC.

And, for this type of behavior, the shooter should be imprisoned - period. Zero tolerance from the pro-gun crowd, towards incompetent & dangerous gun owners, needs to increase: like how so many people demand non-extremist Muslims need to speak up and denounce extremists.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Of course there's more. Like how all up until this incident this was one of those "responsible gun owners."

Most of the mass shootings lately the shooter obtained their guns legally and they were law abiding gun owners up to the point they started killing people.

 

[irishScott]

"But-but-but I was just try'in to help."

And I'm supposed to trust all CC enabled folks because "they all had the training to certify them that they are responsible and safe to be around."

Yeh, when that moment arrives where life/death snap judgments are required, I don't care how much "training" a person has had. It's the person's character and previous experience that really counts. So how much of that is factored into deciding whether or not a person is qualified for CC or not?

In the unit I served in, there were guys that nobody wanted to share a fighting hole with even though we all had the same training. Those fuck-ups would get you killed to save their own skins. They got alienated really quick and justifiably so. Yet there were freak'in certifiable crazies that I wouldn't do without in a tight situation. Character. It's what really counts.

I don't see any difference in a domestic setting. Down at the ranges where I go there's always those idiots that lose their situational awareness and then proceed to put other people's lives in danger. And in my state, attending safety classes are mandatory for handgun ownership.

A lot of help that did.

That being said, sure, I had to get used to rules that were different or completely ignored in a combat setting, just like all the other guys who went through what we did. But there's no excusing folks who, even though they aren't psychotic or aren't harboring easily hidden tendencies that make them dangerous with firearms in hand, will consistently make bad judgments when under stress. Do CC classes really test one's ability to stay calm and make good calls in life threatening situations? Beats me, and correct me if I'm wrong, from what I know of them, they don't.

Yeah, there are people with CCs that probably shouldn't have them. There are also people with driver's licenses who drive drunk. Why? Because there's no reliable way to test whether someone will be a drunk driver or not until you give them alcohol and a car and see what they do. Like you say, it's a matter of character.

The question is whether the societal benefit outweighs that risk, and in the case of cars of course it does. In the case of guns, well that's the core of the gun rights debate. Some people see guns as symbols of strength, independence, safety, others see them as symbols of danger, death, and murderous psychos. Obviously one side is going to see the societal effect of guns as a net positive, and the other as a net negative. Which one is more right remains to be seen.

 

[Nebor]

I'm impressed that she actually struck the tire of a moving vehicle.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I'm impressed that she actually struck the tire of a moving vehicle.

Every bullet lands somewhere.