Teen shot by Tempe police didn’t steal airsoft gun, truck owner says

[JGalt]

World News Tonight was on the TV when I looked up and saw this story. They showed an excerpt from the officer's dashcam video and I don't even have the words for how dismayed I was by what I saw.

This kid was at the far end of an alley, fleeing from the officer. If I had to guess I'd say he was at least half the length of a standard size swimming pool away from the officer so where was the friggin threat to the officer that necessitated him shooting to kill the suspect?

One of the things I remember from way back is that you CANNOT shoot someone for property crimes with very few exceptions. The use of deadly force is supposed to be reserved for self defense in life threatening situations where there is a threat of imminent death or grievous bodily harm.

The string of events began with an anonymous call to 911 from a man saying a suspicious vehicle was parked outside a backyard. The caller told the operator that his home had been robbed the previous week and he was suspicious of anyone in the alley.

Silvas said he believed the callerwas a neighbor several houses away who had been in a dispute with Silvas. Silvas believes the neighbor called police about his truck so officers would give him a hard time.

He said Arce was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

"If he didn't call that 911 call, that young boy would still be alive today," Silvas told The Arizona Republic. "But I would be out a cellphone — because that's all he took outside of my truck was a cellphone."

Video shows Tempe officer shooting 14-year-old as he runs away​

Bet he was black too.......*yawn*

Now.....let's just let 14 yr olds rush into our stores and steal everything.

The code word "teen" should have been a dead giveaway. Black criminals are always a "teen" for some reason.

Where did you get that idea from?

Tamir Rice was called an adult even tho he was 12 years old.
Police thought 12-year-old Tamir Rice was 20 when they shot him. This isn't uncommon.

Trayvon Martin was called a teen (because he was) -- and racists were pissed at the fact he wasn't called a big black buck enough.
Was Trayvon Martin a 'child' or a 'youth'?

In fact, black teens are more likely to be referred to as adults -- whereas, people like Dylann Roof are often referred to as troubled kids...

Black Boys Viewed as Older, Less Innocent Than Whites, Research Finds

Right. Here's a simple non-racial, non-judgemental Google image search including the words teen commits robbery.

"Less innocent"? Sho do be lotsa dark faces, yowsa.



teen commits robbery - Google Search

 

[caddo kid]

World News Tonight was on the TV when I looked up and saw this story. They showed an excerpt from the officer's dashcam video and I don't even have the words for how dismayed I was by what I saw.

This kid was at the far end of an alley, fleeing from the officer. If I had to guess I'd say he was at least half the length of a standard size swimming pool away from the officer so where was the friggin threat to the officer that necessitated him shooting to kill the suspect?

One of the things I remember from way back is that you CANNOT shoot someone for property crimes with very few exceptions. The use of deadly force is supposed to be reserved for self defense in life threatening situations where there is a threat of imminent death or grievous bodily harm.

The string of events began with an anonymous call to 911 from a man saying a suspicious vehicle was parked outside a backyard. The caller told the operator that his home had been robbed the previous week and he was suspicious of anyone in the alley.

Silvas said he believed the callerwas a neighbor several houses away who had been in a dispute with Silvas. Silvas believes the neighbor called police about his truck so officers would give him a hard time.

He said Arce was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

"If he didn't call that 911 call, that young boy would still be alive today," Silvas told The Arizona Republic. "But I would be out a cellphone — because that's all he took outside of my truck was a cellphone."

Video shows Tempe officer shooting 14-year-old as he runs away​

I agree with your statement that I bolded. I have never resided in Arizona but I have resided in three other states for 26, 15, and 17 years. In all three states, it is as you stated above. Shooting a fleeing person, particularly when that person is that far away from the shooter, that results in a death of the one fleeing will pretty much offer the shooter a felony charge of murder, 99% of the time.

In this case however the shooter just so happened to be a LEO. As we all are aware of, LEOs in America have carte blanche to get away with murder when the average Joe in the same situation would be getting the felony murder charge.

This shit happens nearly daily in the US & then folks wonder why police don't get any respect. LOL

Fvck the police.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

At what point was the police officer's life in jeopardy? The kid was running away from him, not towards him.

...with what appeared to be a gun in his hand. Value judgments aside, that kid is going to get shot at by police about 100% of the time.

Am I to understand that when it comes to law enforcement, all concepts of self defense and threats go out the window? Because I was trained that with very few exceptions, the same rules apply for both civilians and LE as far as when deadly force can be used.

 

[DandyDonovan]

The use of deadly force is supposed to be reserved for self defense in life threatening situations where there is a threat of imminent death or grievous bodily harm

But not just when that threat is to the officer or a specific person. It can also be used when a suspect seemingly presents a threat to the public, such as a suspect running away with a gun in his hand.

And we ask our officers to make that decision in a split second...they are humans too, and not infallible...

I understand your reasoning but this was not one of those split second decisions that needed to be made, particularly since the shooting victim didn't have a gun in his hand but more importantly, just being in possessin of a weapon isn't a valid legal basis for being shot and killed.

There are days when I feel badly for some of our police officers. They have to deal with stupid people doing stupid and criminal things every day. But in this case, this officer employed lethal force in situation where it was not warranted because he was not being threatened with death.

We have to get rid of this mentally that the police have the right to kill people "just because" - because they didn't obey the officer, they tried to run away, they had something in their hand, etc.

What part of this are you not understanding? The police are lawfully allowed to shoot a fleeing felon if they have a reasonable belief that said felon is a danger to ANYONE. They don't have to "fear for their lives" and yes, we should be VERY careful who we give that power to, but screaming "racist murdering cop" when it happens helps NO ONE.

The only real issue here is

1) Did the cop suspect that the kid was a felon?
2) Did the cop have a reasonable fear that the kid was a danger to ANYONE (including the kid himself by the way)


Now, I think we as adults can agree that it is probably reasonable to think that a person who has a gun is a danger to another person if that person is fleeing from the cops, can't we?

I think we can also both agree that if "he's black" was the reason the cop felt he was a danger , well that's not reasonable. But that doesn't appear to be what happened here.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I understand your reasoning but the didn't have a gun in his hand but more importantly, just being in possessin of a weapon isn't a valid legal basis for being shot and killed.

A few things, here:

1) Yes, he did have a gun in his hand. Should we assume all guns are plastic guns, in a split second, as a suspect runs away?? No, we should assume all guns are real guns. The cops couldn't tell the difference, and you wouldn't have been able to, either.

2) The air gun functioned exactly as the kid intended: it was perceived as a threat. So let's give a little credit where it is deserved.

3) He wasn't shot merely for 'possession'. He was shot for ignoring officers' orders and running away with what seemed to be a gun in his hand. So what you just said isn't really in dispute, here.

We have to get rid of this mentally that the police have the right to kill people "just because"

"Just because" they are protecting the community from a threat... like from suspects who ignore police orders and run away with guns in their hands.

So, it's not "just because". If you want to have an honest conversation about it (and I think you do), you can't talk this way. What we should be discussing is whether cops could or should shoot these retreating suspects, and under what conditions.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

World News Tonight was on the TV when I looked up and saw this story. They showed an excerpt from the officer's dashcam video and I don't even have the words for how dismayed I was by what I saw.

This kid was at the far end of an alley, fleeing from the officer. If I had to guess I'd say he was at least half the length of a standard size swimming pool away from the officer so where was the friggin threat to the officer that necessitated him shooting to kill the suspect?

One of the things I remember from way back is that you CANNOT shoot someone for property crimes with very few exceptions. The use of deadly force is supposed to be reserved for self defense in life threatening situations where there is a threat of imminent death or grievous bodily harm.

The string of events began with an anonymous call to 911 from a man saying a suspicious vehicle was parked outside a backyard. The caller told the operator that his home had been robbed the previous week and he was suspicious of anyone in the alley.

Silvas said he believed the callerwas a neighbor several houses away who had been in a dispute with Silvas. Silvas believes the neighbor called police about his truck so officers would give him a hard time.

He said Arce was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

"If he didn't call that 911 call, that young boy would still be alive today," Silvas told The Arizona Republic. "But I would be out a cellphone — because that's all he took outside of my truck was a cellphone."

Video shows Tempe officer shooting 14-year-old as he runs away​

Bet he was black too.......*yawn*

Now.....let's just let 14 yr olds rush into our stores and steal everything.

The code word "teen" should have been a dead giveaway. Black criminals are always a "teen" for some reason.

Where did you get that idea from?

Tamir Rice was called an adult even tho he was 12 years old.
Police thought 12-year-old Tamir Rice was 20 when they shot him. This isn't uncommon.

Trayvon Martin was called a teen (because he was) -- and racists were pissed at the fact he wasn't called a big black buck enough.
Was Trayvon Martin a 'child' or a 'youth'?

In fact, black teens are more likely to be referred to as adults -- whereas, people like Dylann Roof are often referred to as troubled kids...

Black Boys Viewed as Older, Less Innocent Than Whites, Research Finds

Right. Here's a simple non-racial, non-judgemental Google image search including the words teen commits robbery.

"Less innocent"? Sho do be lotsa dark faces, yowsa.



teen commits robbery - Google Search

I like how you double down on stupid once your racist delusions gets destroyed by facts....

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Am I to understand that when it comes to law enforcement, all concepts of self defense and threats go out the window?

No, you are supposed to understand that law enforcement'spurpose and its rules are tailored not only to self-defense of officers, but to the defense of the community. That is why we pay them: they stand firm for us and run toward dangerous situations. Clearly that is far from "self defense", so, let's not try to characterize what they are and what they do as this.

 

[JGalt]

World News Tonight was on the TV when I looked up and saw this story. They showed an excerpt from the officer's dashcam video and I don't even have the words for how dismayed I was by what I saw.

This kid was at the far end of an alley, fleeing from the officer. If I had to guess I'd say he was at least half the length of a standard size swimming pool away from the officer so where was the friggin threat to the officer that necessitated him shooting to kill the suspect?

One of the things I remember from way back is that you CANNOT shoot someone for property crimes with very few exceptions. The use of deadly force is supposed to be reserved for self defense in life threatening situations where there is a threat of imminent death or grievous bodily harm.

The string of events began with an anonymous call to 911 from a man saying a suspicious vehicle was parked outside a backyard. The caller told the operator that his home had been robbed the previous week and he was suspicious of anyone in the alley.

Silvas said he believed the callerwas a neighbor several houses away who had been in a dispute with Silvas. Silvas believes the neighbor called police about his truck so officers would give him a hard time.

He said Arce was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.

"If he didn't call that 911 call, that young boy would still be alive today," Silvas told The Arizona Republic. "But I would be out a cellphone — because that's all he took outside of my truck was a cellphone."

Video shows Tempe officer shooting 14-year-old as he runs away​

Bet he was black too.......*yawn*

Now.....let's just let 14 yr olds rush into our stores and steal everything.

The code word "teen" should have been a dead giveaway. Black criminals are always a "teen" for some reason.

Where did you get that idea from?

Tamir Rice was called an adult even tho he was 12 years old.
Police thought 12-year-old Tamir Rice was 20 when they shot him. This isn't uncommon.

Trayvon Martin was called a teen (because he was) -- and racists were pissed at the fact he wasn't called a big black buck enough.
Was Trayvon Martin a 'child' or a 'youth'?

In fact, black teens are more likely to be referred to as adults -- whereas, people like Dylann Roof are often referred to as troubled kids...

Black Boys Viewed as Older, Less Innocent Than Whites, Research Finds

Right. Here's a simple non-racial, non-judgemental Google image search including the words teen commits robbery.

"Less innocent"? Sho do be lotsa dark faces, yowsa.



teen commits robbery - Google Search

I like how you double down on stupid once your racist delusions gets destroyed by facts....

What "facts" are you referring to? The ones you made up in your head, snowflake?

I take it you didn't even look at the Goggle search I linked. Otherwise you wouldn't still be desperately pushing your idiotic leftist narrative of "Mah baby din't do nuffin."

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Bet he was black too.......*yawn*

Now.....let's just let 14 yr olds rush into our stores and steal everything.

The code word "teen" should have been a dead giveaway. Black criminals are always a "teen" for some reason.

Where did you get that idea from?

Tamir Rice was called an adult even tho he was 12 years old.
Police thought 12-year-old Tamir Rice was 20 when they shot him. This isn't uncommon.

Trayvon Martin was called a teen (because he was) -- and racists were pissed at the fact he wasn't called a big black buck enough.
Was Trayvon Martin a 'child' or a 'youth'?

In fact, black teens are more likely to be referred to as adults -- whereas, people like Dylann Roof are often referred to as troubled kids...

Black Boys Viewed as Older, Less Innocent Than Whites, Research Finds

Right. Here's a simple non-racial, non-judgemental Google image search including the words teen commits robbery.

"Less innocent"? Sho do be lotsa dark faces, yowsa.



teen commits robbery - Google Search

I like how you double down on stupid once your racist delusions gets destroyed by facts....

What "facts" are you referring to? The ones you made up in your head, snowflake?

I take it you didn't even look at the Goggle search I linked. Otherwise you wouldn't still be desperately pushing your idiotic leftist narrative of "Mah baby din't do nuffin."

Either refute the actual study I posted -- or shut the entire fuck up

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

and while you are at it, I will keep posting facts for you to avoid...

Like how this grown man was called a kid..and how folks (most likely you included) were arguing how he should not get jail time because of how good of a swimmer he was...didn't want to ruin the kid's future.

Meanwhile, this man was actually 17 when he was wrongfully prosecuted and sentenced to prison -- (despite being a star athlete and also, innocent)...but folks (most likely including you) will still look at him and call him a thug, because that is how fear and inferiority complexes work(which mostly like you have).

 

[JGalt]

The code word "teen" should have been a dead giveaway. Black criminals are always a "teen" for some reason.

Where did you get that idea from?

Tamir Rice was called an adult even tho he was 12 years old.
Police thought 12-year-old Tamir Rice was 20 when they shot him. This isn't uncommon.

Trayvon Martin was called a teen (because he was) -- and racists were pissed at the fact he wasn't called a big black buck enough.
Was Trayvon Martin a 'child' or a 'youth'?

In fact, black teens are more likely to be referred to as adults -- whereas, people like Dylann Roof are often referred to as troubled kids...

Black Boys Viewed as Older, Less Innocent Than Whites, Research Finds

Right. Here's a simple non-racial, non-judgemental Google image search including the words teen commits robbery.

"Less innocent"? Sho do be lotsa dark faces, yowsa.



teen commits robbery - Google Search

I like how you double down on stupid once your racist delusions gets destroyed by facts....

What "facts" are you referring to? The ones you made up in your head, snowflake?

I take it you didn't even look at the Goggle search I linked. Otherwise you wouldn't still be desperately pushing your idiotic leftist narrative of "Mah baby din't do nuffin."

Either refute the actual study I posted -- or shut the entire fuck up

No, shithead. You do not control the narrative here, so GFY with a rusty AIDS-infected garden rake. I don't have to "refute" any five year-old liberally-biased racially-motivated "study" done by a bunch of ass-sucking liberal psychologists. The piece refuted itself and made you look like the idiot you are.

Do you even know that the cop is black, or did you not even read the OP? No doubt that you're just like evary other libtard that believes "OMYGARD!!! White cops are murdering poor black teens....WAHHHH!"?

Grow the fuckup and quit being a tard already.

 

[progressive hunter]

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Its horrible but idk how you get around it.
Determine that police have no right to life?

At what point was the police officer's life in jeopardy? The kid was running away from him, not towards him.

He still had a gun and was easily considered a danger to society.

Except it WASN'T a gun and "danger to society" is not equal to an "imminent threat of death or grievous bodiy harm", the key part being "imminent" as in "immediate". It doesn't mean what "might" happen or "could" happen it refers to what "is in process now".

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Except it WASN'T a gun

Except you haven't explained how anyone should be able to tell. Account for this.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

danger to society" is not equal to an "imminent threat of death or grievous bodiy harm"

But cops are tasked with protecting society. You still refuse to account for this as well.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Dumb "teen".

Bet he won't do that again.

Running teen, shot and killed.

Gang of thugs surrounding an elderly vet, applauded.

Gee.....no privilege to see here.

You lie yet again. When do you get off that bender you are on and catch a freaking clue?

 

[TNHarley]

Its horrible but idk how you get around it.
Determine that police have no right to life?

At what point was the police officer's life in jeopardy? The kid was running away from him, not towards him.

He still had a gun and was easily considered a danger to society.

Except it WASN'T a gun and "danger to society" is not equal to an "imminent threat of death or grievous bodiy harm", the key part being "imminent" as in "immediate". It doesn't mean what "might" happen or "could" happen it refers to what "is in process now".

What are they supposed to do? Ask them nicely to inspect it?
Im willing to compromise with you on this but your current stance is unreasonable.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Its horrible but idk how you get around it.
Determine that police have no right to life?

At what point was the police officer's life in jeopardy? The kid was running away from him, not towards him.

He still had a gun and was easily considered a danger to society.

Except it WASN'T a gun and "danger to society" is not equal to an "imminent threat of death or grievous bodiy harm", the key part being "imminent" as in "immediate". It doesn't mean what "might" happen or "could" happen it refers to what "is in process now".

How did the officer know it was not a gun? Did they start training cops in clairvoyance and I missed it?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

The use of deadly force is supposed to be reserved for self defense in life threatening situations where there is a threat of imminent death or grievous bodily harm

But not just when that threat is to the officer or a specific person. It can also be used when a suspect seemingly presents a threat to the public, such as a suspect running away with a gun in his hand.

And we ask our officers to make that decision in a split second...they are humans too, and not infallible...

I understand your reasoning but this was not one of those split second decisions that needed to be made, particularly since the shooting victim didn't have a gun in his hand but more importantly, just being in possessin of a weapon isn't a valid legal basis for being shot and killed.

There are days when I feel badly for some of our police officers. They have to deal with stupid people doing stupid and criminal things every day. But in this case, this officer employed lethal force in situation where it was not warranted because he was not being threatened with death.

We have to get rid of this mentally that the police have the right to kill people "just because" - because they didn't obey the officer, they tried to run away, they had something in their hand, etc.

What part of this are you not understanding? The police are lawfully allowed to shoot a fleeing felon if they have a reasonable belief that said felon is a danger to ANYONE. They don't have to "fear for their lives" and yes, we should be VERY careful who we give that power to, but screaming "racist murdering cop" when it happens helps NO ONE.

The only real issue here is

1) Did the cop suspect that the kid was a felon?
2) Did the cop have a reasonable fear that the kid was a danger to ANYONE (including the kid himself by the way)


Now, I think we as adults can agree that it is probably reasonable to think that a person who has a gun is a danger to another person if that person is fleeing from the cops, can't we?

I think we can also both agree that if "he's black" was the reason the cop felt he was a danger , well that's not reasonable. But that doesn't appear to be what happened here.

It's this part - property crimes vs crimes of violence: Tennessee v. Garner - Wikipedia

Tennessee v. Garner

Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 30, 1984
Decided March 27, 1985
Full case name Tennessee v. Edward Garner, et al.
Citations 471 U.S. 1 (more)
105 S. Ct. 1694; 85 L. Ed. 2d 1; 1985 U.S. LEXIS 195; 53 U.S.L.W. 4410
Prior history On certiorari from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Holding
Law enforcement officers pursuing an unarmed suspect may use deadly force to prevent escape only if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.

Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr. · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr. · William Rehnquist
John P. Stevens · Sandra Day O'Connor
Case opinions
Majority White, joined by Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens
Dissent O'Connor, joined by Burger, Rehnquist
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. IV
Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985),[2] is a civil case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, under the Fourth Amendment, when a law enforcement officer is pursuing a fleeing suspect, the officer may not use deadly force to prevent escape unless "the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others." It was found that use of deadly force to prevent escape is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, in the absence of probable cause that the fleeing suspect posed a physical danger.[1]:563-7

Contents

• 1 Facts and procedural history
• 2 Opinion of the Court
  • 2.1 Dissent
• 3 Limitations of Impact
• 4 See also
• 5 References
• 6 External links

Facts and procedural history
At about 10:45 p.m. on October 3, 1974, Memphis police officers Leslie Wright and Elton Hymon were dispatched to answer a burglary call next door. Officer Hymon went behind the house as his partner radioed back to the station. Hymon witnessed someone running across the yard. The fleeing suspect, Edward Garner, stopped at a 6-foot-high (1.8 m) chain-link fence. Using his flashlight, Hymon could see Garner's face and hands, and was reasonably sure that Garner was unarmed. The police testified that they believed Garner was 17 or 18 years old; Garner was in fact 15 years old. After Hymon ordered Garner to halt, Garner began to climb the fence. Believing that Garner would certainly flee if he made it over the fence, Hymon shot him. The bullet struck Garner in the back of the head, and he died shortly after an ambulance took him to a nearby hospital. Ten dollars and a purse taken from the burglarized house were found on his person.

Hymon acted according to a Tennessee state statute and official Memphis Police Department policy authorizing deadly force against a fleeing suspect. The statute provided that "if, after notice of the intention to arrest the defendant, he either flee or forcibly resist, the officer may use all the necessary means to effect the arrest."

Garner's father then brought suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, naming the City of Memphis, its mayor, the Memphis Police Department, its director, and Officer Hymon as defendants. The District Court found the statute, and Hymon's actions, to be constitutional. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. The Court of Appeals held that the killing of a fleeing suspect is a "seizure" for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment, and is therefore constitutional only when it is reasonable. The court then found that based on the facts in this case, the Tennessee statute failed to properly limit the use of deadly force by reference to the seriousness of the felony.

Opinion of the Court
Justice White wrote for the majority, first agreeing with the Sixth Circuit's determination that apprehension by use of deadly force is a seizure, then framing the legal issue as whether the totality of the circumstances justified the seizure. In order to determine the constitutionality of a seizure, White reasoned, the court must weigh the nature of the intrusion of the suspect's Fourth Amendment rights against the government interests which justified the intrusion.

The use of deadly force against a subject is the most intrusive type of seizure possible, because it deprives the suspect of his life, and White held that the state failed to present evidence that its interest in shooting unarmed fleeing suspects outweighs the suspect's interest in his own survival.

White examined the common law rule on this matter and its rationale. At common law, it was perfectly legitimate for law enforcement personnel to kill a fleeing felon. At the time when this rule was first created, most felonies were punishable by death, and the difference between felonies and misdemeanors was relatively large. In modern American law, neither of these circumstances existed. Furthermore, the common law rule developed at a time before modern firearms, and most law enforcement officers did not carry handguns. The context in which the common law rule evolved was no longer valid. White further noted that many jurisdictions had already done away with it, and that current research has shown that the use of deadly force contributes little to the deterrence of crime or the protection of the public.

On the basis of the facts found by the district court, Hymon had no reason to believe that Garner was armed or dangerous. The Court ordered the case remanded for a determination on the liability of the other defendants.

Dissent
In her dissent, Justice O'Connor highlighted the fact that police officers must often make swift, spur-of-the-moment decisions while on patrol, and argued that the robbery, and assault that happen in the home are related to the already serious crime of burglary. The Tennessee statute represents the state legislature's judgment that such crimes may require the use of deadly force in order to protect the public against those who commit such crimes. She also disagreed that a suspect's interest in his own life necessarily allows the right to flee from the scene of a crime when pursued, thereby escaping due process, although the majority did not find nor articulate any "right to flee."
​

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

danger to society" is not equal to an "imminent threat of death or grievous bodiy harm"

But cops are tasked with protecting society. You still refuse to account for this as well.

Not by shooting and killing people who are not posing an imminent threat to them or anyone else.

As upsetting as it may be to the victim, and I've been there myself, theft is not a crime for which the penalty is death. If he knocked a little old lady over the head for her purse and got shot as he was fleeing I'd have a slightly different perspective because a human being was injured in the commission of this crime, although I don't know if the fact that it involved violence against a person automatically makes it a felony in the state of Arizona.

I don't know if any of you remember this, but right after the state of Florida passed it's castle doctrine law (also known as stand-your-ground), a series of really bad court rulings occurred. One of them involved a guy whose truck got broken into and the radio stolen. The owner of the truck chased down the thief and then stabbed him to death. The killing was ruled to be self-defense because the thief allegedly swung the bag containing the radio and I guess whatever other loot he had obtained at the person who was trying to kill him and the judge ruled, inexplicably, at least to me, that swinging the bag constituted an "imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm" to the stabber and therefore he had the right to kill the thief under the states new stand your ground law.

I've read the text of that law and I couldn't find anywhere within it anything that authorizes chasing someone down for stealing something from you then killing them if they try to defend themselves from you killing them, but hey I'm not a judge. But at least according to this case, reasonable or not, there was an element of an imminent threat. And this was a property crime.

News article regarding this case:
'Stand Your Ground': Miami Judge Decides Fatal Stabbing Was Self-Defense