Woman charged for trying to shoot tires of shoplifter

[anotherlife]

You don't need to carry a concealed weapon for either of those scenarios.

You are such a know-it-all, telling thers what they "need." Puuhleese!

Ok, if you don't like that answer, here is another one. A felon loses his right to own a gun forever. So should she.

Well, I would disagree with that too. I think that only violent crimes that were committed with a gun should be the requirement that the government has to prove before messing with a citizen's rights.

The woman in the OP committed a violent crime with a gun.

Since her intent (and that DOES count) was not to commit a crime, then no.

Are you a lawyer? And if yes, then intentional property damage must be some sort of a crime, doesn't it?

 

[ChrisL]

I'm sorry but your personal opinions of another person's mental capacities are not valid in a court of law unless you are a mental health expert who was subpoenaed as an expert witness as to the mental capacity of the person in question.

THIS is what it means to have rights as citizens. People such as yourself cannot just "decide" for another.

Chris, this passive aggressive stuff is getting wearisome. You continuously ask my opinion, and then tell me my opinion counts for nothing. Since we both knew that before either of us posted, it is obvious that you are simply tossing out bait, and them shooting down the answer (which you already knew in advance, as well). Since you do not have any desire to learn, then quit pretending that this is a debate. As i said, before, all you really want is validation of your opinions. i'm done.

You seem to think that someone asking for you opinion must consider it valid and accept it.

I'm really not interested in your posts about me personally. If you can't stay on topic, the posting rules say that you should not post at all.

When YOU bring it up, it becomes part of the topic. Typical blame someone else mentality.

ignored.

For THAT? Holy smokes! A bit sensitive?

 

[ChrisL]

You are such a know-it-all, telling thers what they "need." Puuhleese!

Ok, if you don't like that answer, here is another one. A felon loses his right to own a gun forever. So should she.

Well, I would disagree with that too. I think that only violent crimes that were committed with a gun should be the requirement that the government has to prove before messing with a citizen's rights.

The woman in the OP committed a violent crime with a gun.

Since her intent (and that DOES count) was not to commit a crime, then no.

Are you a lawyer? And if yes, then intentional property damage must be some sort of a crime, doesn't it?

I don't have to be a lawyer to know about the law. I would think she would probably be charged with negligent discharge of a firearm or something.

 

[Conservative65]

Chris, this passive aggressive stuff is getting wearisome. You continuously ask my opinion, and then tell me my opinion counts for nothing. Since we both knew that before either of us posted, it is obvious that you are simply tossing out bait, and them shooting down the answer (which you already knew in advance, as well). Since you do not have any desire to learn, then quit pretending that this is a debate. As i said, before, all you really want is validation of your opinions. i'm done.

You seem to think that someone asking for you opinion must consider it valid and accept it.

I'm really not interested in your posts about me personally. If you can't stay on topic, the posting rules say that you should not post at all.

When YOU bring it up, it becomes part of the topic. Typical blame someone else mentality.

ignored.

For THAT? Holy smokes! A bit sensitive?

He's just a big *****.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You don't need to carry a concealed weapon for either of those scenarios.

You are such a know-it-all, telling thers what they "need." Puuhleese!

Ok, if you don't like that answer, here is another one. A felon loses his right to own a gun forever. So should she.

Well, I would disagree with that too. I think that only violent crimes that were committed with a gun should be the requirement that the government has to prove before messing with a citizen's rights.

The woman in the OP committed a violent crime with a gun.

Since her intent (and that DOES count) was not to commit a crime, then no.

Her intent is irrelevant. She committed the violent crime on the spur of the moment so she is still accountable for needlessly endangering the lives of others.

 

[Geaux4it]

Good, she needs to be charged. It is not her call to damage other people's property such as tires. If she was the shop assistant, this may be different. But she is just a meddling punk, so she needs to be in jail.

And so does the criminal known as the shoplifter

-Geaux

 

[aaronleland]

She is a retard. She thought she was Batgirl,, but she was Paul Blart.

 

[Geaux4it]

She is a retard. She thought she was Batgirl,, but she was Paul Blart.

Agreed.

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

You are such a know-it-all, telling thers what they "need." Puuhleese!

Ok, if you don't like that answer, here is another one. A felon loses his right to own a gun forever. So should she.

Well, I would disagree with that too. I think that only violent crimes that were committed with a gun should be the requirement that the government has to prove before messing with a citizen's rights.

The woman in the OP committed a violent crime with a gun.

Since her intent (and that DOES count) was not to commit a crime, then no.

Her intent is irrelevant. She committed the violent crime on the spur of the moment so she is still accountable for needlessly endangering the lives of others.

A violent crime

LMAO

-Geaux

 

[ChrisL]

You are such a know-it-all, telling thers what they "need." Puuhleese!

Ok, if you don't like that answer, here is another one. A felon loses his right to own a gun forever. So should she.

Well, I would disagree with that too. I think that only violent crimes that were committed with a gun should be the requirement that the government has to prove before messing with a citizen's rights.

The woman in the OP committed a violent crime with a gun.

Since her intent (and that DOES count) was not to commit a crime, then no.

Her intent is irrelevant. She committed the violent crime on the spur of the moment so she is still accountable for needlessly endangering the lives of others.

Since there was no motive on her part to commit any crime when the incident occurred and she was "negligent," she will probably be charged with negligent or reckless discharge of a firearm.

Unlawful Weapons Discharge: Laws and Penalties | Criminal Law

 

[2aguy]

US woman charged for shooting at fleeing shoplifter

A perfect example of a CCW person playing Charles Bronson in a busy parking lot, and putting bystanders at risk.

Is she what some call a "responsible gun owner"?

Okay….so out of 12.8 million people carrying guns for self defense……minus one…..yeah…..I can see you really have no point.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Ok, if you don't like that answer, here is another one. A felon loses his right to own a gun forever. So should she.

Well, I would disagree with that too. I think that only violent crimes that were committed with a gun should be the requirement that the government has to prove before messing with a citizen's rights.

The woman in the OP committed a violent crime with a gun.

Since her intent (and that DOES count) was not to commit a crime, then no.

Her intent is irrelevant. She committed the violent crime on the spur of the moment so she is still accountable for needlessly endangering the lives of others.

Since there was no motive on her part to commit any crime when the incident occurred and she was "negligent," she will probably be charged with negligent or reckless discharge of a firearm.

Unlawful Weapons Discharge: Laws and Penalties | Criminal Law

• Jail.Jail sentences for the unlawful discharge of a weapon differ widely depending on the state or city. For some city ordinance violations there may be no associated jail time penalty at all, while misdemeanor charges can result in a few days or up to a year in jail. Felony offenses, especially where a person fired into an occupied home or fired in a way that risked human safety, can result in prison sentences of five years of more.

Once convicted she would be a felon who would no longer to be entitled to possess firearms depending upon the state.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You are wrong if you tryly believe "I thought the constitution is unconditional in protecting everyone's right to be armed, with any type of weapon they want."

 

[Vandalshandle]

You are wrong if you tryly believe "I thought the constitution is unconditional in protecting everyone's right to be armed, with any type of weapon they want."

If that were true, I suppose that Smith & Wesson should start sending catalogs to prison libraries everywhere.

 

[hortysir]

Yep. This is a perfect example for you of a a CCW person playing Charles Bronson in a busy parking lot, and putting bystanders at risk.


One example.

Noone was hurt, luckily and I hope she does not actually do jail time for such a minor incident.

Lose of CCW seems certainly called for.

Lol wildly opening fire in a parking lot shouldn't lose her her license?

Lol. Reading comprehension fail.

Yes, she should lose her cwp.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, I would disagree with that too. I think that only violent crimes that were committed with a gun should be the requirement that the government has to prove before messing with a citizen's rights.

The woman in the OP committed a violent crime with a gun.

Since her intent (and that DOES count) was not to commit a crime, then no.

Her intent is irrelevant. She committed the violent crime on the spur of the moment so she is still accountable for needlessly endangering the lives of others.

Since there was no motive on her part to commit any crime when the incident occurred and she was "negligent," she will probably be charged with negligent or reckless discharge of a firearm.

Unlawful Weapons Discharge: Laws and Penalties | Criminal Law

• Jail.Jail sentences for the unlawful discharge of a weapon differ widely depending on the state or city. For some city ordinance violations there may be no associated jail time penalty at all, while misdemeanor charges can result in a few days or up to a year in jail. Felony offenses, especially where a person fired into an occupied home or fired in a way that risked human safety, can result in prison sentences of five years of more.

Once convicted she would be a felon who would no longer to be entitled to possess firearms depending upon the state.

It is still not considered a "violent" crime!

 

[Derideo_Te]

The woman in the OP committed a violent crime with a gun.

Since her intent (and that DOES count) was not to commit a crime, then no.

Her intent is irrelevant. She committed the violent crime on the spur of the moment so she is still accountable for needlessly endangering the lives of others.

Since there was no motive on her part to commit any crime when the incident occurred and she was "negligent," she will probably be charged with negligent or reckless discharge of a firearm.

Unlawful Weapons Discharge: Laws and Penalties | Criminal Law

• Jail.Jail sentences for the unlawful discharge of a weapon differ widely depending on the state or city. For some city ordinance violations there may be no associated jail time penalty at all, while misdemeanor charges can result in a few days or up to a year in jail. Felony offenses, especially where a person fired into an occupied home or fired in a way that risked human safety, can result in prison sentences of five years of more.

Once convicted she would be a felon who would no longer to be entitled to possess firearms depending upon the state.

It is still not considered a "violent" crime!

Discharging a firearm is a form of violence. You can quibble about semantics if you wish but she used deadly force in a situation that had no call for it whatsoever and in doing so she needlessly and callously "risked human safety".

 

[hortysir]

The woman in the OP committed a violent crime with a gun.

Since her intent (and that DOES count) was not to commit a crime, then no.

Her intent is irrelevant. She committed the violent crime on the spur of the moment so she is still accountable for needlessly endangering the lives of others.

Since there was no motive on her part to commit any crime when the incident occurred and she was "negligent," she will probably be charged with negligent or reckless discharge of a firearm.

Unlawful Weapons Discharge: Laws and Penalties | Criminal Law

• Jail.Jail sentences for the unlawful discharge of a weapon differ widely depending on the state or city. For some city ordinance violations there may be no associated jail time penalty at all, while misdemeanor charges can result in a few days or up to a year in jail. Felony offenses, especially where a person fired into an occupied home or fired in a way that risked human safety, can result in prison sentences of five years of more.

Once convicted she would be a felon who would no longer to be entitled to possess firearms depending upon the state.

It is still not considered a "violent" crime!

Agreed
It can't compare to the waffle house shooting because that criminal was engaged in a felony.

The woman reminds me of Gomer on an old Andy Griffith episode hollering "Citizens arest! Citizens arrest" over an illegal u-turn.