User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/31/2009 1:23:22 AM EDT
[#1]
Have to be careful when you pull that trigger.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2009 4:35:08 AM EDT
[#2]
Saw that on the news last night. He will probably get a plea deal.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2009 5:19:49 AM EDT
[#3]
I'm amazed that shootings aren't a regular occurance at that mall. It's a cesspool.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2009 5:34:12 AM EDT
[#4]
That was just plain stupid, apparently the thief did not brandish a weapon. The store owner should not have pulled his gun.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2009 5:53:48 AM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
I'm amazed that shootings aren't a regular occurance at that mall. It's a cesspool. I lived there in the 80's. Sure has changed. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2009 6:46:13 AM EDT
[#6]
I spent HOURS at that mall from 84-87. I would not go in there now. SS
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2009 7:18:34 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm amazed that shootings aren't a regular occurance at that mall. It's a cesspool. I lived there in the 80's. Sure has changed. Hell, it's change a lot since the mid-90s. My wife used to go there all the time. Now, not a chance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2009 7:19:26 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted:
That was just plain stupid, apparently the thief did not brandish a weapon. The store owner should not have pulled his gun. From my understanding, the POS didn't need a weapon. If the owner thought that he was gonna get away, he can use as much force as necessary to stop the BG. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2009 8:01:42 AM EDT
[#9]
Quoted:
Quoted:
That was just plain stupid, apparently the thief did not brandish a weapon. The store owner should not have pulled his gun. From my understanding, the POS didn't need a weapon. If the owner thought that he was gonna get away, he can use as much force as necessary to stop the BG. I believe the point was not with regard to the legality of the action, but the wisdom of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2009 8:18:10 AM EDT
[#10]
Raising Arizona anyone?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2009 11:10:55 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted:
Quoted:
That was just plain stupid, apparently the thief did not brandish a weapon. The store owner should not have pulled his gun. From my understanding, the POS didn't need a weapon. If the owner thought that he was gonna get away, he can use as much force as necessary to stop the BG. This is true. But firing the weapon in a crowded shopping mall is a no go |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2009 11:18:26 AM EDT
[#12]
Yep that place has changed.
The whole town has.... Grew up there. I remember in the 70s when there was nothing in the middle of the mall and you could see all the way across the middle. Also remember in the corners where there are now escelators - used to have 3 big kid playgrounds where the kids could run and play/climb on these big METAL safari animals from elephants, hippos, lions, gorillas, etc. I am dating myself.. Hell - I remember walking around BIG TOWN MALL back then when it was a BIG TIME MALL ................ OLD , and OUT OF MEQUITE - |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2009 12:25:58 PM EDT
[#13]
Did the bullet ricochet several dozen times?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2009 12:47:22 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Quoted:
That was just plain stupid, apparently the thief did not brandish a weapon. The store owner should not have pulled his gun. From my understanding, the POS didn't need a weapon. If the owner thought that he was gonna get away, he can use as much force as necessary to stop the BG. Not true |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2009 1:24:45 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That was just plain stupid, apparently the thief did not brandish a weapon. The store owner should not have pulled his gun. From my understanding, the POS didn't need a weapon. If the owner thought that he was gonna get away, he can use as much force as necessary to stop the BG. This is true. But firing the weapon in a crowded shopping mall is a no go No it is not. The suspect committed a theft. You can only use deadly force to prevent theft or consequences of theft at night. Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and (3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2009 2:00:13 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
That was just plain stupid, apparently the thief did not brandish a weapon. The store owner should not have pulled his gun. From my understanding, the POS didn't need a weapon. If the owner thought that he was gonna get away, he can use as much force as necessary to stop the BG. This is true. But firing the weapon in a crowded shopping mall is a no go No it is not. The suspect committed a theft. You can only use deadly force to prevent theft or consequences of theft at night. Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and (3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury. Yeah, but opening fire on someone in a shopping mall for theft is about as reckless as they come. That bullet could have very easily injured or killed someone taking little Suzy to buy new shoes. There are some situations where you need to use your head and file an insurance claim for the stolen object. I guarantee you that if his round had struck someone other than the thief then he'd have MUCH bigger problems than just a stolen ring. This guy is a moron. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2009 2:02:45 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
I'm amazed that shootings aren't a regular occurance at that mall. It's a cesspool. No it isn't either. There are a lot of Mexicans there, but that's about it. They don't have any more crime at that mall than at any other mall in the metroplex, and it's plenty safe to shop there or walk around in the parking lot. I used to live right across the street from that mall and it is fine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2009 4:03:34 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm amazed that shootings aren't a regular occurance at that mall. It's a cesspool. No it isn't either. There are a lot of Mexicans there, but that's about it. They don't have any more crime at that mall than at any other mall in the metroplex, and it's plenty safe to shop there or walk around in the parking lot. I used to live right across the street from that mall and it is fine. Every time I've been by there the past few years there have been multiple squad cars in their reserved parking spots near the entrance. But maybe they were just shopping. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/31/2009 6:24:52 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Every time I've been by there the past few years there have been multiple squad cars in their reserved parking spots near the entrance. But maybe they were just shopping. They weren't shopping; MPD maintains a sub-station just to the right of the mall entrance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/1/2009 9:31:47 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Every time I've been by there the past few years there have been multiple squad cars in their reserved parking spots near the entrance. But maybe they were just shopping. They weren't shopping; MPD maintains a sub-station just to the right of the mall entrance. That pretty much sums it up. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
