Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yup. while the press loves to focus on whether or not one is "armed", the bottom line is, does the person pulling the trigger have a reasonable belief that theirs (or another's) life is at risk and therefore deadly force is necessary. That could mean that they are about to deliver a coup de grace stomp to someone's head or about to shove someone off a bridge.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 8 days ago)
35,634 posts, read 17,975,706 times
Reputation: 50662
Quote:
Originally Posted by naicha
That's great,...so this must be false reporting
The two don't jive.
Well, I posted an article shortly upthread, with the police report stating there is video of him shooting the thief as the thief was running out the store.
However, prior to that, the thief was in a struggle with two of the employees when Jackson entered the store.
I can't imagine that otherwise, Jackson would be charged with anything if he shot at the thief while he was engaged in combat with the Dollar General employee.
Who said he was fleeing?
Are you Jean Dixon speaking from the Grave?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDS_
90% chance Jackson will received a Grand Jury, "No-Bill" and walk away free and clear. -----Betts the, "shoplifter" as some of you are trying to spin it had in fact been a serial shoplifter who had just committed assault and battery for sure and robbery* resulting in injuries to at least one woman and likely two. He was actively fighting the women when he was shot.
*Dallas police applied the term robbery to Betts not me.
Perp committed assault against employee (from the story).
How bad was the assault...was the clerk bleeding?
did clerk need medical attention....?
was clerk 'Screaming for help'---?
how big was perp...?
was he 6ft, 200lbs with a Prior Record for Violence?
Maybe not. But how is a business owner supposed to protect his inventory, and thus his livelihood, if he is not allowed to defend his property against those who would steal it? Kind of a rhetorical question in this case, in that the shooter was a customer, not the store owner. But even so, it's something that needs to be fleshed out. It's easy enough to say that a few one-dollar items aren't worth a life; but what if those one-dollar items are one's means of sustenance?
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 8 days ago)
35,634 posts, read 17,975,706 times
Reputation: 50662
Quote:
Originally Posted by bus man
Maybe not. But how is a business owner supposed to protect his inventory, and thus his livelihood, if he is not allowed to defend his property against those who would steal it? Kind of a rhetorical question in this case, in that the shooter was a customer, not the store owner. But even so, it's something that needs to be fleshed out. It's easy enough to say that a few one-dollar items aren't worth a life; but what if those one-dollar items are one's means of sustenance?
An aside, but Dollar General isn't Dollar Tree. Dollar General is like a low budget Walmart (did I just say that?) and Dollar Tree has items for $1.25.
Dollar General is one of the VERY few retail outlets that is thriving - springing up everywhere, in a time where brick and mortar stores are shrinking. They are generally in areas that can't support a Walmart, and they're popping up like mushrooms.
Yes, if you nitpick this incident you can go on and on about how there was no weapon therefore no deadly force was necessary, etc.
However, in light of how criminals have run amok recently, and that this criminal may in the future have committed theft that leads to death of innocent civilians, this was a good outcome.
Its not nitpicking. Killing unarmed people who are not posing a danger is not ok. Its not ok when the police do it nor and its not ok when a customer does this.
Its not nitpicking. Killing unarmed people who are not posing a danger is not ok. Its not ok when the police do it nor and its not ok when a customer does this.
I agree with your view. I didn't read the entire story, only the highlights. Based on the facts, the guy with the gun should not have shot anyone. His life wasn't being threatened. The armed man is in some serious trouble. You can't play vigilante just because you have a gun in your hand. smh
90% chance Jackson will received a Grand Jury, "No-Bill" and walk away free and clear.
Betts the, "shoplifter" as some of you are trying to spin it had in fact been a serial shoplifter who had just committed assault and battery for sure and robbery* resulting in injuries to at least one woman and likely two. He was actively fighting the women when he was shot.
*Dallas police applied the term robbery to Betts not me.
Based on the limited information available so far, a "no bill" is unlikely. If it was a strong-arm robbery (as in no weapon or implied threat of weapon was involved), then the use of deadly force could only be justified if he was literally in the act of beating the complete and utter tar out of someone.
This is why store employees are told not to fight or get in the way of someone stealing. It does not work out in anyone's favor not involved in the theft including bystanders.
Exactly. Rule #1 you don’t fight people who have nothing to lose.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
