Why is it so difficult to understand LTCH DOES NOT MEAN LAW ENFORCEMENT

[VERT]

Don't you mean civilians?

No there is s thread about that somewhere. Wouldn't want anybody to get offended.

 

[foszoe]

I see you wouldn't take the

No there is s thread about that somewhere. Wouldn't want anybody to get offended.

 

[JeffINGunner]

That's a serious indictment. What is the supporting evidence? How many police vs. shoplifter encounters are there? Since you claim that police will shoot anyone, how many police vs. non-police encounters are there? How many of each situation result in police action shootings?

Oh I dont know, just watch the news just about any day and you will see another police shooting. I am not saying that most of them are not justified, but there are a number that have been in recent news releases that are in no way justified.

 

[VERT]

Oh I dont know, just watch the news just about any day and you will see another police shooting. I am not saying that most of them are not justified, but there are a number that have been in recent news releases that are in no way justified.

The same main stream media also talks about mass shootings and all of the gun crime. This is in spite of a decrease in violent crime, in particular gun crime since 2000.

 

[pudly]

That's exactly why I asked for statistics. The news is highly slanted and doesn't present an accurate picture of the state of crime in the US. Ever since Ferguson (if not before), the news has been particularly anti-police enforcement.

 

[searpinski]

I wouldn't have shot the person and I'm certain no police officer would either. I'm not a person that trusts law enforcement, but police shootings in the news seem to be justified. Every time an officer fires his or her gun, he or she is potentially forfeiting his or her future.I doubt shoplifting is gun worthy...

 

[actaeon277]

Could be, because of the intense media campaign to make it look as if crime is increasing, that people are losing faith in the governments ability to keep the peace.

Everyone thinks of the police as being there to protect the public. But change that around. Try thinking about the police being there to protect the criminal, or at least protect the accused.
Where there is a lack of government, such as in the territories back in the day, there was "Frontier Justice" or "Vigilantism".
There being less of an investigative process, they sometimes got the wrong guy.
And the punishment tended to be more harsh. Lot of hanging and horse whipping.
Government steps in to keep the piece. Gives the citizens a chance to feel "something" is being done.
Bad guy does time in a cell instead of the end of a rope.

Not excusing it.
Just stating it's a possibility.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Oh I dont know, just watch the news just about any day and you will see another police shooting. I am not saying that most of them are not justified, but there are a number that have been in recent news releases that are in no way justified.

The news also tells me that America is full of disgruntled white men, who just want to kill minorities and school children. Oh yeah and want to replace Old Glory with the confederate battle flag. You still confident in the unbiasness of news outlets, Johnny?

 

[Informed Decision]

Just to possibly save grace for the gentleman who shot at the "fleeing shoplifter" ... Fleeing from him could have meant they were fleeing toward grandma with a walker. Would that not possibly justify the use of force. Of course I'm bleeding into this a lot but I suspect we may not have all the info to be worthy judges here.

 

[roscott]

Many years ago in America it was legal to shoot thieves. Just interesting food for thought.

 

[pudly]

Many years ago in America it was legal to shoot thieves. Just interesting food for thought.

I'm pretty sure that murder and attempted murder are among the first laws that would have been passed. When/where was this exception for shooting thieves available?

 

[WestSider]

Well it's up to them whether they want to send up charges, then up to the prosecutor whether he/she wants to pursue it.. If they do send up criminal recklessness by definition it would be the felony version since a deadly weapon was involved...

IC 35-42-2-2
Criminal recklessness; element of hazing; liability barred for good
faith report or judicial participation
Sec. 2. (a) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally
performs an act that creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to
another person commits criminal recklessness. Except as provided in
subsection (b), criminal recklessness is a Class B misdemeanor.
(b) The offense of criminal recklessness as defined in subsection
(a) is:
(1) a Level 6 felony if:
(A) it is committed while armed with a deadly weapon; or
(B) the person committed aggressive driving (as defined in
IC 9-21-8-55) that results in serious bodily injury to another
person; or
(2) a Level 5 felony if:
(A) it is committed by shooting a firearm into an inhabited
dwelling or other building or place where people are likely
to gather; or
(B) the person committed aggressive driving (as defined in
IC 9-21-8-55) that results in the death of another person.

 

[CPT Nervous]

Well it's up to them whether they want to send up charges, then up to the prosecutor whether he/she wants to pursue it.. If they do send up criminal recklessness by definition it would be the felony version since a deadly weapon was involved...

IC 35-42-2-2
Criminal recklessness; element of hazing; liability barred for good
faith report or judicial participation
Sec. 2. (a) A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally
performs an act that creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to
another person commits criminal recklessness. Except as provided in
subsection (b), criminal recklessness is a Class B misdemeanor.
(b) The offense of criminal recklessness as defined in subsection
(a) is:
(1) a Level 6 felony if:
(A) it is committed while armed with a deadly weapon; or
(B) the person committed aggressive driving (as defined in
IC 9-21-8-55) that results in serious bodily injury to another
person; or
(2) a Level 5 felony if:
(A) it is committed by shooting a firearm into an inhabited
dwelling or other building or place where people are likely
to gather; or
(B) the person committed aggressive driving (as defined in
IC 9-21-8-55) that results in the death of another person.

Yep. It amazes me that people are willing to do stupid **** like this that would forever bar them from owning guns.


At a minimum, the state could revoke his LTCH.

 

[MohawkSlim]

Maybe soon we'll see LTCH holders setting up by the side of the road to stop shoplifters before they get to the store.

 

[CPT Nervous]

Maybe soon we'll see LTCH holders setting up by the side of the road to stop shoplifters before they get to the store.

An ounce of prevention...

 

[Dead Duck]

Maybe soon we'll see LTCH holders setting up by the side of the road to stop shoplifters before they get to the store.

That would be a good deterrent.....better if they were open carrying.
Just a couple at each exit would cut down on the stealing problem.


As it is there is no incentive NOT to steal from others. All they get is a slap on the wrist. This country needs to lift the laws a bit and let the people take care of business like it used to be.

Doing the right thing isn't always legal.......unfortunately.

 

[WestSider]

That would be a good deterrent.....better if they were open carrying.
Just a couple at each exit would cut down on the stealing problem.


As it is there is no incentive NOT to steal from others. All they get is a slap on the wrist. This country needs to lift the laws a bit and let the people take care of business like it used to be.

Doing the right thing isn't always legal.......unfortunately.

Like many others, Theft is a multi-level crime, and at bare minimum in Indiana is a class A misdemeanor. Automatically becomes a Felony if they have a prior conviction or the value of the property stolen exceeds $750.

I get what you're saying about people being able to take care of their own business, but I feel this story is a bad example of that, as I personally don't feel like he did the right thing at all.
I know I wasn't there, but I can't think of a situation where running into a commercial parking lot and firing at a shoplifter's vehicle as he drives off is a good idea.

 

[SwikLS]

but I can't think of a situation where running into a commercial parking lot and firing at a shoplifter's vehicle as he drives off is a good idea.

If he's yelling Aloha Snackbar?

 

[WestSider]

If he's yelling Aloha Snackbar?

 

[Lex Concord]

When the suspects entered a vehicle, the shopper drew a handgun and fired one shot at them, police say.

The story is very light...all around. It seems possible that the suspects entered the vehicle, then took a run at security and the "civilian". This would certainly justify the shot fired were it the case.

Any chance the "Truth" would conveniently omit portions of the truth to support a leftward bent (e.g. those who carry can't be trusted)? I've never read it, but I get the impression that the Bend is generally anti-gun.

/speculationFest