Other State 88 y.o. woman charged for shooting shoplifter

[Cavedweller]

"I did what I had to do, and I hope word gets out on the street that I'm fed up and I'm not taking it anymore," she told The Post Saturday from her store, where supportive customers lined up. "You've got to stick up for yourself sometimes."

Has she made a case for using deadly force? Lots of mistakes here ("I aimed at the floor," "I thought he was going to steal from me.")

88-year-old liquor store owner who shot alleged thief no ‘little old lady’

Tough-talking, alleged shoplifter-shooting, 88-year-old Nashville liquor store owner May Boyce wants criminals to know “I’m fed up and I’m not taking it anymore,” she tells …

nypost.com

Read More

 

[Mikej]

That's a tough one. I don't know about Tennessee? Purportedly you can shoot people in Texas for messing with your stuff.

 

[Alexx1401]

I had to laugh when I read it a couple days ago. Sadly, assuming it really did happen as told, she is of course going to lose. They may not push too hard for criminal charges if she just refuses to plead as how bad to they want to get her in front of a jury. Sadly some lawyer will take anything they can take from her though. One thing for sure the one who was stealing got a painful lesson. Kind of a shame more pain is not applied to the scum who steal.

 

[aknate]

She only messed up by hitting him in the back.
Scumbag DA's will hammer on her for that, Instead of charging the D-Bag with aggravated theft.( Just on the fact of her age.)

 

[leadcounsel]

Here's a philosophical question: Is it okay to defend property with lethal force? Well, generally the law says it's not okay for civilians to do so.

But, if you're a bank you can have armed guards who will in fact defend bank money (Federal Money) with guns. If you're the police or law enforcement, you can defend property with lethal force. If you're the US military, you can defend property with lethal force, and many installations can deploy lethal force for merely trespassing.
So apparently that "principle" just applies to you and me.

I think we as a society should take a serious re-evaluation and go back to the days when horse thieves were hanged and people COULD use lethal force to defend their property and livelihood. Why should people suffer serious and often continued economic losses, pay higher insurance premiums, suffer those economic losses of lost insurability, and the anger, stress, and frustration of thieves and vandals? I know a gun shop owner who was burgled and a very expensive pistol was stolen. The gun was recovered, destroyed by the thief. Near total loss. The insurance paid out, minus deductible, and then skyrocketed (doubled) his rates. So he was victimized by the thief, and the insurance, and the loss of money. Last year as I was leaving Lowes, two guys just brazenly pushed out a car full of expensive tools and supplies without purchase. Loaded it in their car and raced off. I got pictures and notified the manager, who confirmed the theft and barely cared. Those loses are passed on to consumers.

Anyway, we have attempted to place high value on life, even the lives of scum thieves and vandals. In doing so, we encourage more thieves and place no value on private property rights. We also victimize society thru huge societal costs associated with the practice.

I think we really should return to the days when you could in fact defend your VALUABLE private property, such as business inventory, with lethal force.

 

[v0lcom13sn0w]

if youre going to shoot, shoot to kill.

 

[Camelfilter]

Here's a philosophical question: Is it okay to defend property with lethal force? Well, generally the law says it's not okay for civilians to do so.

But, if you're a bank you can have armed guards who will in fact defend bank money (Federal Money) with guns. If you're the police or law enforcement, you can defend property with lethal force. If you're the US military, you can defend property with lethal force, and many installations can deploy lethal force for merely trespassing.
So apparently that "principle" just applies to you and me.

I think we as a society should take a serious re-evaluation and go back to the days when horse thieves were hanged and people COULD use lethal force to defend their property and livelihood. Why should people suffer serious and often continued economic losses, pay higher insurance premiums, suffer those economic losses of lost insurability, and the anger, stress, and frustration of thieves and vandals? I know a gun shop owner who was burgled and a very expensive pistol was stolen. The gun was recovered, destroyed by the thief. Near total loss. The insurance paid out, minus deductible, and then skyrocketed (doubled) his rates. So he was victimized by the thief, and the insurance, and the loss of money. Last year as I was leaving Lowes, two guys just brazenly pushed out a car full of expensive tools and supplies without purchase. Loaded it in their car and raced off. I got pictures and notified the manager, who confirmed the theft and barely cared. Those loses are passed on to consumers.

Anyway, we have attempted to place high value on life, even the lives of scum thieves and vandals. In doing so, we encourage more thieves and place no value on private property rights. We also victimize society thru huge societal costs associated with the practice.

I think we really should return to the days when you could in fact defend your VALUABLE private property, such as business inventory, with lethal force.

Agreed, generally & in principal.

However "valuable" should be left completely out of the discussion.

What's valuable to one, may be deemed valueless by hundreds. The only one it matters to is the rite full owner.

Mind, I'm not saying I would use lethal force protecting MY property, let alone someone else's.

However, I would have ZERO problems with it being legal, and MY CHOICE to do so, or not do so.

 

[MannyGlocks]

CF,

How about if the property was in your house while you were home?

 

[Legs]

Those touting for killing over possessions have never taken a life. A terrible thing to do. Over money, car or whatever. Those things can be replaced. Come in my house though.... all bets are off.
Criminals need to fear the system again. Hard time.... longer, with no comforts. A la sheriff Joe...!

 

[Alexx1401]

Here's a philosophical question: Is it okay to defend property with lethal force? Well, generally the law says it's not okay for civilians to do so.

But, if you're a bank you can have armed guards who will in fact defend bank money (Federal Money) with guns. If you're the police or law enforcement, you can defend property with lethal force. If you're the US military, you can defend property with lethal force, and many installations can deploy lethal force for merely trespassing.
So apparently that "principle" just applies to you and me.

I think we as a society should take a serious re-evaluation and go back to the days when horse thieves were hanged and people COULD use lethal force to defend their property and livelihood. Why should people suffer serious and often continued economic losses, pay higher insurance premiums, suffer those economic losses of lost insurability, and the anger, stress, and frustration of thieves and vandals? I know a gun shop owner who was burgled and a very expensive pistol was stolen. The gun was recovered, destroyed by the thief. Near total loss. The insurance paid out, minus deductible, and then skyrocketed (doubled) his rates. So he was victimized by the thief, and the insurance, and the loss of money. Last year as I was leaving Lowes, two guys just brazenly pushed out a car full of expensive tools and supplies without purchase. Loaded it in their car and raced off. I got pictures and notified the manager, who confirmed the theft and barely cared. Those loses are passed on to consumers.

Anyway, we have attempted to place high value on life, even the lives of scum thieves and vandals. In doing so, we encourage more thieves and place no value on private property rights. We also victimize society thru huge societal costs associated with the practice.

I think we really should return to the days when you could in fact defend your VALUABLE private property, such as business inventory, with lethal force.

If the voters ever decide they have had enough? Then we could have some sense of reality again. Sadly we have what we have because a vast majority want it this way. This leads to people like this gal finally getting enough now and then. Just too bad it does not make a whole lot more voters get mad enough to care.

 

[11Charlie]

if youre going to shoot, shoot to kill.

If the pistol leaves the holster I am in fear of my life and you are not gonna walk away.

 

[Camelfilter]

CF,

How about if the property was in your house while you were home?

How about it?

Oregon, is already legal to use lethal force in that scenario.

I believe anyways.

Anywho, *I* would be in fear for my, &/or loved ones lives. So no splitting of hairs on that one.

 

[aknate]

Those touting for killing over possessions have never taken a life. A terrible thing to do. Over money, car or whatever. Those things can be replaced. Come in my house though.... all bets are off.
Criminals need to fear the system again. Hard time.... longer, with no comforts. A la sheriff Joe...!

Criminal's need to fear the people that they are trying to victimize , not the system.

Obvuoisly your life has never been threatened over possession's.
Or in any real way.....

 

[JohnnyMac]

I have read that elderly and otherwise vulnerable people are given quite a bit of leeway in regards to the use of deadly force. An 88 year old woman could die from a simply light push that causes a fall. She had every right from minute one to fear for her life.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

I'm old enough (76) to remember when being caught in the act of stealing livestock would get the thief killed on the spot. When I was 6 or 7 (in either '49 or '50) my dad caught two arseholes trying to cut a few head of cattle out of the herd through a gap they'd cut in the fence. He shot one dead on the spot and is pretty sure he winged the other one. The sheriff came out and took a report. No arrest, no charges. Oddly enough, there was a hell of a lot less thievery and lawlessness in those days...

 

[Flymph]

I have no pity for thieves, but that lady shouldn't have shot the thief with the way things are. I'm also not going to say she was wrong to shoot at the thief.

 

[Alexx1401]

Criminal's need to fear the people that they are trying to victimize , not the system.

Obvuoisly your life has never been threatened over possession's.
Or in any real way.....

The sad part of stuff like this is you can't shoot a thief in the back. It's sad that this is how it is but, that does not change the reality that this is how people want it. Where the criminals have more rights than the people. So when someone does what she did they have to pay. She is lucky the criminal did not die, and that she is as old as she is. Her age and the fact that the scum did not die means she may well get off without time in jail. The scum can and probably will get a lawyer now and sue. If he does she will most likely lose in court. Again this is what the people keep saying they want. I don't like it but, you have to remember when you touch off a round, and your life was not under imminent threat, you are risking a LONG, expensive legal hassle. Hell even when someone is threatening your life you have a real good shot at a LONG, expensive legal hassle.

 

[billdeserthills]

Those touting for killing over possessions have never taken a life. A terrible thing to do. Over money, car or whatever. Those things can be replaced. Come in my house though.... all bets are off.
Criminals need to fear the system again. Hard time.... longer, with no comforts. A la sheriff Joe...!

At 87, Shurf Joe is running for his old job again

At 87, Joe Arpaio is running for his old job as sheriff

FOUNTAIN HILLS, Ariz. (AP) — In a memorabilia-packed office that could serve as a museum to his career, Joe Arpaio plots how he might, at the age of 87, get back his old job as the sheriff of metro Phoenix.

apnews.com

 

[Member 5605]

However "valuable" should be left completely out of the discussion.

correct. theft is theft.

intrinsic value isnt needed to justify theft

 

[leadcounsel]

Those touting for killing over possessions have never taken a life. A terrible thing to do. Over money, car or whatever. Those things can be replaced. Come in my house though.... all bets are off.
Criminals need to fear the system again. Hard time.... longer, with no comforts. A la sheriff Joe...!

I suspect if a person saw one of those Brinks bank trucks, and just walked up and tried to take a bag of money, they'd be met with the threat of lethal force. That's simply a bank representing the government FDIC insured money (property in the purest sense), and threatening lethal force to do so. Similar with a jewelry store. If a person walked in and tried to take a case full of jewelry, lethal force would be threatened or used.

So why not a liquor store? Is her property not as important? It's her livelihood afterall...

I suspect, psychologically, there's a direct correlation to thefts and the type of punishments or deterrents allowed. Horse thieves who are hanged, don't horse thieve again and others probably stop as well. However, when society has no real punishments, these property crimes soar.