stolen merchandise?...

I share your

standing in the parking lot, shooting repeatedly at a guy stealing walmart crap! Talk about delusional! 99.9% chance he feels like he's the protector of the people with his gun, and felt he was supposed to do this so he could be on the news!

UPDATE -----

when asked, as they put him in the back of the cruiser, if he thought he'd get arrested, he said "NO!" Again, he thinks he's an honorary part of the police force because he's got a permit to carry (from what I believe I heard). Talk about delusional.

topped the value of the 4 discharged rounds, the window and the trunk.

...the average copper's.

as much as possible and do your shopping online.

duh.
everybody knows that.

ive made this argument to friends of mine..
how can someone shoot someone breaking into their house if their intent isnt to harm but only to steal and it not be a crime when no weapons are found?
sure , you have a right to protect yourself.. at any and all times..
but against an actual life or death threat..
not the fear of the threat.

I happen to live in a very safe rural area where break-ins just don't happen. I own guns but none of them are loaded or placed strategically where I can get at them quickly for purposes of self-defense. But I think if I lived in a high-crime area I might keep a pistol handy, and if someone broke into my living area I would shoot them if I thought my wife or I were at risk.

This guy was actually only stealing. Very VERY different situations.

So he did more than shoplift.

She was trying to prevent him from leaving with the merchandise.

Buongiorno's husband said he thinks the citizen had a right to shoot.

"He came at us," said Andrew Buongiorno. &quot He) threw the car in reverse, tried to run us over. That's attempted murder."

How did we survive without you?

If I'm in a place where a criminal is trying to flee the scene and gets into his/her vehicle and starts it to peel away, I do my very best to NOT stand right behind the fucking car. But that's just me.

get real. this dumbass could've shot an innocent bystander ffs.

of a good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun.

yup

Depends on the state...this shooter's response may be a TAD much.

I need to work on my "Captain Obvious", huh?

and took a bullet to the chest - my God! What the heck was that moron thinking? These wannabe-cop/vigilantes who carry weapons are mostly people I don't want to be near - ever.

Adrenaline + gun = Disaster, unless you are trained, not just to handle a gun, but to have on in emergency situations and know when you should, and when you should not fire it. That's why we hire and spend thousands training police. Maybe if Florida has enough trouble with this shit (like some Rethug pol gets shot at a Wal Mart by accident) they will finally wake up to the lunacy that is their gun laws.

No imminent threat from the shoplifter.

At least one witness alleges that there was.

""He came at us," said Andrew Buongiorno. &quot He) threw the car in reverse, tried to run us over. That's attempted murder.""


(Buongiorno was not the shooter)

Imminent danger doesn't mean "he did something earlier" or "he might do something later".

The Buongiornos were knocked down as they tried to enter the store. I have trouble believing the shoplifter tried to back into the store. On the other hand, he might throw the car into reverse to get out of a parking space.

but the Buongiornos that made that statement did not claim to have been knocked down. That was a male. The female was knocked down at the store. So here's your hypothetical:

1. The male chased him.
2. Suspect got in his car.
3. Buongiornos and possibly the shooter stood behind his car blocking him in the stall.
4. Suspect throws it in reverse.

Doesn't matter that Buongiornos put himself in that situation, it's still an imminent threat against him where he had a legal right to be.



I don't know that this is what happened. That is just one of a thousand possible scenarios, including the possibility that the shooter was just pissed that a shoplifter seemed to be getting away. This article is way too thin on details to draw any sort of meaningful conclusion at this point. If the shooting can't be justified to a reasonable degree, there will be a grand jury to review the scenario. If the bar of lethal force in self defense was not met, he the shooter will be charged with a crime.

No need to try the shooter off a shitty news source.

And with someone claiming they thought they had been shot because they were "knocked down so hard", I have a lot of trouble giving their story a lot of credibility.

But you missed my central point: According to this report, the shooting happened after the shoplifter drove off. Which means imminent threat went away.

It doesn't establish who was standing where, how far from the store, etc.

Wouldn't mind seeing the actual police report.
AND I wouldn't say the shooting sounds justifiable. It sounds extremely risky, at the very least, and possibly unnecessary, or even legally hazardous. The truth will out. Wheels of justice grind slow. Pick your metaphor, but I find the end results of a prosecution rarely match up perfectly with the initial news reports of the alleged crime.

Cops invented that excuse after the SC ruled they could not shoot someone merely for fleeing.

So, they invented the "coming right at us" argument for shooting at will.

I think a lot of people in this thread were a little to quick to judge, when you really need something like a grand jury to sort through it and hopefully also review WalMart security camera footage, and make a determination whether the shooter actually broke any laws.

i'm guessing these idiots positioned themselves DIRECTLY behind the car in an attempt to prevent him from leaving.

Hell, I stood in front of a drunk driver at a red light once, when it turned green. Wouldn't have given her the right to run me over. Cops thanked me for it too.

Risky, but the police needed time to arrive. It's legal to do when you witness a crime in progress.

It's always legal to stand in front of a moving vehicle - crime or not.

But as they say, good luck with that.

I for one would give my life any day to prevent shoplifting.

To me, it's a matter of principle.

--> Obviously, such people do exist.

The jury is allowed to presume intent to kill because he used a gun.

No premeditation, so 2nd degree.

I was a juror in Wyoming for a murder trial where the shooter missed the intended person and blew off half of the head of an innocent bystander. He was tried for first degree murder and the judge instructed the jury that "the intent followed the bullet". If the shooter tried to kill a person and killed another instead, then he is guilty of murder. The shooter was found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced accordingly.

Or was it life?

I've never been on a jury (and never will be as I live outside the country now). It would have been interesting to be a juror in a case where there was a lessor crime. A murder trial would be intense though.

He got life.
Yes, being a juror is intense but it is quite an experience in human relations!

no harm, no foul. no blood, no ambulance. these aren't the droids you're looking for......

to shoot Jose?

When does the insanity end?

Gun worshippers apparently say that it is an alternate system of justice which kills or mains criminals as an act of popular justice.

OK well popular justice must be popular. And because it is popular it is presumed to be just.

That is the latest NRA talking point. They really want chaos and trying to spark a civil war. It's getting much more serious now, and want to seize power any way they can.

They are getting people ready for martial law - exactly what the wing nuts say they need their guns to protect themselves from the government. But it's not the government doing it, they're doing it to us themselves.

Living in an armed camp is no different from the state model for the regular citizen than their fabled 'police state!!!111!!' they holler about.

Years of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and voila, in leadup to Iraq, Tom Daschle, a really good man and his wife, got 'thraxed after Sean called him a devil 100 times over.

Years of hate media and this LaPierre guy(why this guy is given free airtime on major media
I don't know) is inciting everyone to hate.

the old racial wars are being inflamed, and the republicans that indulge in birther and other areas are openly calling for war against them
The civil War is being reignited.

They need to start making examples of vigilantes.

They need to find Zimmerman 100% guilty of whatever the top charge is.

And what LaPierre is attempting to do is have a shoot to kill anyone not like him in cold blood
and say they werre being threatened by some conspiracy theory threat that don't exist.

They are terrorists and LaPierre and the NRA is a terror organization.

Why are people negotiating with them?

Zimmerman Paul Blarts are taking away MY 1st amendment rights.

These people who want to tear our system down are anarchists and extremists,
wanting 100% chaos.

It will be like Danzinger Bridge if they could do it.

(there were ZERO riots in New Orleans. Only ones doing the shooting were the vigilantes on Danzinger Bridge and their like.)

BTW, everytime an event like this happens, only solidifies my view that we need MORE not less
federal security everywhere. MORE not less checkpoints

and my view that
We need to quickly work for a gun in the streets FREE America by any private citizen, with guns kept in the home.

anyone away from the vehicle, but, what if a guy was walking behind the car on the other row of cars, and took one? This idiot shooter could go to prison, when he thinks he was being a hero! (he told the news Lady who asked him if he thought he'd be arrested, "no!&quot

The possibility of ricochet is one of the reasons for the common firearms safety rule "Never shoot at a flat, hard surface
Idiot shooter and there were others in charge(loss prevention employee) of that problem which was not his
Really stepping over the line but I am sure he already has lots of fans and kudos

There's no imminent threat justifying deadly force.

Because lesson one is, unless your life is in immediate danger, you must not shoot.

another person. They just want an excuse, any excuse. Ugh. Save us.

My concern with concealed carry is that most of the people to take advantage of those state legal rights are the most likely to perceive a threat where none exists and, therefore, have the worst judgment or the most disturbed personalities.

which is a very good idea IMO

http://www.govtech.com/public-safety/102478594.html?page=2

I think it's legal to shoot fleeing shoplifters in Texas. But I'm not sure about Florida.

I thought that was only in dueling banjos area of the north Florida pan handle.

Ya think?!!

"A Texas man who shot and killed two men he believed to be burglarizing his neighbor's home won't be going to trial. A grand jury today failed to indict Joe Horn, a 61-year-old computer technician who lives in an affluent subdivision in Pasadena, Texas.

In the Lone Star state, where the six-gun tamed the frontier, shooting bad guys is a time-honored tradition, and Horn's case centered on a Texas state law based on the old idea that "a man's home is his castle." The "castle law" gives Texans unprecedented legal authority to use deadly force in their homes, vehicles and workplaces. And no longer do they have an obligation to retreat, if possible, before they shoot.

"I understand the concerns of some in the community regarding Mr. Horn's conduct," Harris County District Attorney Kenneth Magidson told reporters at the courthouse. "The use of deadly force is carefully limited in Texas law to certain circumstances. ... In this case, however, the grand jury concluded that Mr. Horn use of deadly force did not rise to a criminal offense."

'I'm Gonna Shoot!' Horn called 911 in November to report a burglary in broad daylight at the house next door.

"I've got a shotgun; you want me to stop him?" Horn asked the dispatcher.

"Nope. Don't do that," the dispatcher replied. "Ain't no property worth shooting somebody over, OK?"

Horn was clearly upset by the dispatcher's response."






Some think Joe Horn when too far when he shot and killed two men he believed were buglarizing his neighbor's home.

"I'm not gonna let them get away with it," he said. "I can't take a chance getting killed over this, OK."

Despite the dispatcher's protects, Horn said, "I'm gonna shoot! I'm gonna shoot!"

The 911 dispatcher warned Horn to stay inside at least a dozen separate times, telling him, "An officer is coming out there. I don't want you to go outside that house."

Then Horn sounding angrier by the moment cited the new Texas law.

"OK, but I have a right to protect myself too, sir," he said. "And you understand that. And the laws have been changed in this country since September the first, and you know it and I know it."

Moments later, Horn saw two burglars leave his neighbor's house, one of them carrying a bag filled with cash and jewelry.

"I'm gonna kill him," Horn said. "Stay in the house," the dispatcher said. "They're getting away," Horn replied. "That's all right," the dispatcher said. "Property's not worth killing someone over. OK?" "---damn it," said Horn, who then defied the dispatcher.

"Well, here it goes, buddy, you hear the shotgun clicking, and I'm going," he said.

"Don't go outside," the dispatcher warned.

Self-Defense? Horn says he came out his front door, down his porch and confronted the two burglars. The next sounds heard on the 911 tape are Horn ordering the two men to stop & and then shooting them both.

"Move you're dead," he said, and fired his shotgun three times.

"Both suspects were shot in the back," Pasadena Police Captain A.H. "Bud" Corbett said. "Not at the same angle, but both suspects were hit in the back."

Horn fatally shot the burglars, two illegal immigrants from Colombia named Diego Ortiz and Miguel de Jesus. Stephanie Storey, De Jesus' fiancée, wanted to see Joe Horn prosecuted.

"This man took the law into his own hands," she said. "He shot two individuals in the back after having been told over and over to stay inside. It was his choice to go outside and his choice to take two lives."

Horn turned down an ABC News request for an interview but his attorney Tom Lambright insists Horn was entirely justified.

...What I should have said was that no states "black letter law" allows lethal force to defend mere property. Shooting a burglar is usually justified it is reasonable for the house or apartment occupant to believe his or her life to be in danger. This is what I was taught in law school.

The lesson I still haven't learned is that black letter law does not usually reflect reality. And the fact is most Americans think their have a god-given duty to kill trespassers. Knowing those folks will be on the jury, the DA sometimes has to make decisions based on that kind of consideration.

Texas again, ever the poster child:


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.




Sec. 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY.

A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:


(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or

(2) the actor reasonably believes that:

(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;

(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or

(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

It states under sec. 9.43, deadly force is justified for protection of third party property if the circumstances are reasonably justified under the parameters of 9.41 or 9.42. Don't know what those are for 9.41 but 9.42 seems to have a caveat...."nighttime". It seems to suggest that use of deadly force to protect third party property is only justified at "nighttime". Must be a reason for that....confusing. Under the circumstance, guess this wasn't an issue.

It is only apparently justifiable at night.

It's Texas. They might still have statutes on the books for shooting horse thieves. Who knows. (Partly snark there, partly 'you never know'...)

§ 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in
lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is
justified in using force against another when and to the degree the
actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful
interference with the property.
(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible,
movable property by another is justified in using force against the
other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force
is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the
property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit
after the dispossession and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no
claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using
force, threat, or fraud against the actor.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.





I'm aware of NO other state with these sorts of laws, but they may exist somewhere...

First of all, the neighbor's home is not Horn's "castle." A case like above is the worst because he murdered people who weren't a threat to him over property. I have also read too many stories of people shooting dogs and/cats without any regard to what is around them or if the shooting is even warranted for personal safety reasons. There are some people who should just never be allowed to own guns. This guy was in no way shape or form defending himself. He appointed himself judge, juror and executioner.

A plainclothes officer was first to arrive on the scene. He stayed in his vehicle, because he was afraid Horn might mistake him for a getaway driver or something, but he witnessed the shooting. He testified that the two burglars were approaching Horn when he shot them.

That had a powerful effect on the Grand Jury.

Whether it was true or not, is an entirely different question. I am told that police officers do not always speak the truth, for a variety of motives, and the public comments on the autopsy reports suggest that something else may have happened, but that was a crucial piece of testimony in the grand jury investigation, and I think it odd it was left out of that account of the story. Without that testimony, Horn probably would have been charged, and possibly convicted.

Man, that's better than Annie Oakley!

The facts are:
1. Horn observed what appeared to be an attempted burglary next door and called the cops.
2. It has never been shown that Horn had an ownership interest in the house next door, therefore that home was not his "castle."
3. The Dispatcher told him numerous times to not go after the burglars.
4. He was in no immediate danger in HIS OWN HOME.
5. The moment he left his house he formed intent which is premeditation.
6. If the men started walking towards him I cut him no slack because he intentionally put himself in that situation.
7. I personally think that he should have been charged with 1st Degree Murder.

I am sick and tired of crazy gun freaks moaning and groaning about how much their life is in danger when what they are doing is taking themselves from a 100% safe situation and intentionally confronting a person or persons that could be dangerous. There is a total lack of personal responsibility on ones own actions.

There is not doubt, in hearing what was on the tape that Horn left his house with every intention of putting those guys in the grant ound. Would you want to live next door to a nut like this?

I hope that the victims families sue him in civil court.

I believe he gained civil immunity under Texas law for the grand jury no-bill.

by this incident is that he can intentionally walk towards trouble and then kill people and get away with it. He has not been held accountable for his actions. There is nothing to ever stop him from doing it again.

Until society forces federal and state governments to enact reasonable gun laws I no longer have any sympathy for victims of gun crimes. There are some people who fail to properly secure their guns and then cry oh what a tragic accident when a child gets a hold of a gun and kills himself or someone else. God forbid if you actually held the gun owner accountable. Maybe if we started locking these idiots up,m people might actually think about securing their guns because it is apparent that their love for their children is not enough to make them responsible gun owners.

There was just an incident where a grandmother with known mental health issues who had access to a gun was allowed to pick up her grandchildren. And then people are shocked when she kills the grandchildren and herself? What is she doing with a gun in the first place?

The President stated at the State of the Union that there had been over 1000 gun related deaths since the Newtown shootings. Look at all of the incidents of mass murder.

What on earth do people expect? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Clearly...... he made the decision to MURDER!

means if someone tried to punch me I couldnt shoot them.

trying to shoot somebody for stealing wal mart shit (aka 'stuff') is lunacy. We were allowed to fire on anyone trying to steal say...a weapon system. Or comsec stuff. Not MREs, not bullshit from the PX.

Where are all the teabaggers now saying "we ought to start by enforcing the laws we already have".

Kay. Let's.

Capital punishment for shoplifting. WTF is wrong with people?

We already allow individuals to be judge, jury, and executioner whenever they imagine that they're in danger in public and, in their own home, it's well established that it's open season on anyone who enters.

Lesson 1, Rule 1

The use of deadly force is not authorized to stop an unarmed petty thief.

Book this idiot!

This shit needs to be taken seriously, I sure as hell don't want to be at the store when some idiot concealed carry asshole decides to open fire.

I could live with that.

And with the proliferation and ease of getting a CCW, there will be more and more stories just like this.


Wannabe vigilantes with itchy trigger fingers who by plain dumb luck and poor shooting skills haven't shot anyone dead.

Now he's going to find out what not having a gun is like.

It just makes him another guy with a gun.

The same qualities with which he makes other decisions in life... will be the same qualities he employs when using his gun.

===============

to heap some criticism at the thief that stole property and stampeded over a woman? Apparently there is more to the story.

http://www.wesh.com/news/central-florida/volusia-county/Armed-shopper-shoots-at-Walmart-shoplifter-police-say/-/12983450/19107006/-/prwfmy/-/index.html

I like it: I see someone running from a potential crime scene in Florida, I gun him down. Anyone stealing from the great American institution of Walmart deserves to die immediately. Driving around shooting at alleged criminals could be a new tourist attraction for Florida. They could call it "Trayvoning". It could be like a big game hunt in Africa, with stuffed black kids as the take-home prize.

It was reported that the perp nearly ran over folks with his car? It's damned different than some poor schmo ripping off some tic tacs and a carnival freak with a gun starts mindlessly shooting. Look, the shooter was wrong, but is this just an ant-gun thread or what?

feel free to criticize the shoplifter if it raises your moral superiority power level. suffice it to say, most of us are against shoplifting and trampling of people without feeling a need to go on record affirming that stance.

The shoplifter was charged with misdemeanors and the shooter was charged with 2 felonies.

Maybe 18 months would be sufficient for him to understand that you don't blast away at shoplifters like you are Bruce Willis in Die Hard 7. Imbecile.

After all, it is the one-year anniversary of the Trayvon Martin murder.

plain and simple, but he is not represantative of the entire group of CCW holders. There will always be bad apples, in everything. Look at all the people we give Drivers' licenses to

I worked retail for far too many years. I pounded it into my employees heads- if you are being robbed at the register, or someone is stealing, LET THEM GO. We pay insurance for losses of merchandise or cash- not lives.

Only in Sick Fuck Gun Hero World.

yup

yes, it is potentially grounds for self defense, possibly including the employment of lethal force in self defense.

(I would not use the words 'attempted murder', but it would meet various state laws about 'apprehension of imminent, serious bodily harm', which is the bar to employ force in self defense)

sounds like a death penalty case to me!