Michigan woman with concealed carry permit opens fire at alleged Home Depot shoplifters

originally posted by: blupblup

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: blupblup

Dude, talk out both sides of your mouth much?

Yea, shooting at somebody for shoplifting is plain stupid. Literally zero debate from me on that.

The fact remains we have no idea WHY she shot, so you sitting here ranting that that's her reason is...

INSANE.

Waiting for the whole story is fun

The thread title....

Michigan woman with concealed carry permit opens fire at alleged Home Depot shoplifters

Thank you for that. I missed it up there at the top of the page.

What would be a better title? They're suspected of shoplifting. That much is clear. Should the article be titled "woman shoots at people who probably stole something and may or may not have assaulted the LP that tried to apprehend them but we're not sure yet but it's possible so we're gonna go with it!" or something?

Good Christ you're just being intentionally ignorant now. They're called shoplifters because they're on video shoplifting. Beyond that we don't know what happened. The police are asking for witnesses to come forward, but ATS obviously doesn't need them. Done and dusted as far as ATS is concerned.

In no way should any CCP pull their gun unless lives are in danger. Shoplifting does not count. Nor is it her responsibility to stop the theft. You tell the store or call the police. She should be charged with recklessness.

a reply to: Shamrock6

What does it matter about any assault or not..as I get the story she shot at a moving vehicle..moving away from her?..self defence isn't retroactive is it?

Every gun in her house is probably already at the police station. Any particularly cool or valuable ones are in an officers safe, i mean were lost and or had to be destroyed due to paperwork inconsistencies.

There was a naval officer/gun collector i lived near once. A vicious pit bull had gotten loose and attacked a lady walking her small dog. It killed her dog and turned on her. He ran out and shot the dog. Twice. He said it didnt let go of her after the first shot.

ATF had all of his guns by sundown of the next day. He was charged with at a minimun public discharge, although perhaps others. The conviction caused him a dishonorable discharge from the Navy. He had been trying for years to get his collection back, I don't know if he ever succeeded.

My opinion is that there are many facts missing from this story. If she keeps her ccw and her guns, something crazy is going on.

I personally have no problem with her keeping her guns, but not her ccw. Whatever Michiganers prefer is fine with me though.

ETA It was hard not to refer to her as a nutter, because she pretty much must be, but I do try hard not to judge, especially without all the facts.

originally posted by: Shamrock6

Thank you for that. I missed it up there at the top of the page.

What would be a better title?

Based on what info we have?

Crazed woman fires live rounds in public shopping area

originally posted by: Gothmog
Put a weapon in the hands of a responsible person - potential hero
Put a weapon in the hands of an idiot - bad times ahead.

haven't you heard?...they don't do backround checks for idiots, either.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Just my opinion, some even in authority shouldn't have guns. George Zimmerman, for instance?

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Just my opinion, some even in authority shouldn't have guns. George Zimmerman, for instance?

Yow can someone who cant be trusted with a weapon be trusted with authority?

originally posted by: ~Lucidity Hero? Vigilante? Off-duty or retired cop?

how about trigger-happy moron? a perfect fit.

I wonder what would have happened had a police officer - who didn't know about the shoplifting part - had been passing and saw her unloading on a car. Easy way to get herself shot.

This is an issue I have with the whole concealed carry thing.
You are a responsible gun owner who has excellent marksmanship due to constant practice, have undergone all sorts of crisis management training, and combat preparedness courses. You understand how stress situations can affect your decisions, and you know the difference between a life-and-death situation. You are a responsible gun owner.
At least that's what you ATS gun owners tell me. I'm actually okay with that, despite my hatred of guns.

For every one of you, there are a couple hundred who don't live up to those standards.

If I ever find myself in a situation where it would be handy if someone were carrying, I bet you dollars to doughnuts that you are not the person that's around. Even if you are, there's a good chance that "the other guy" will be there too, and will be more hindrance than help. My safety is at the mercy of "the other guy," not you.

These people read the "Come take it from me" memes with their lips moving, and think that nothing can every challenge the second AMENDMENT (clue in there somewhere...). They are not proficient in handling a weapon, but it's all about rights, and freedoms, and stuff... oh, and shiny things....
Every thread about guns you'll see them, with their "More gunzzzzz" posts that ignore the issues of the actual thread.
They are a threat to everyone's safety. As someone mentioned above, the women in this instance could jeopardize everyone's right to carry.

My right to be safe in my person is undermined by their 'right' to carry.

As I said, I'm actually okay with those of you who are super-trained in correct weapon handling, but you are seriously in the minority.

a reply to: Badgered1

She might get a verbal command to drop her weapon before being shot.

To help further that perspective had she been a cop her actions would have been no more justified.

What a crazy story. I want to say that ccw should not interfere beyond personal protection but that is not right. I want someone there to help but she did not help by shooting the car. Dumb move and makes everyone look bad. However she has every right to try citizens arrest.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Sometimes being a good witness is leaps and bounds more helpful than getting directly involved.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Oh yes I get it.

There is good help and bad help and this ladies actions were bad help but legal and should be used as an example of what not to do. Completely legal but unacceptable.

a reply to: deadeyedick

Her actions were anything but legal. Michigan law is pretty clear when it comes to use of deadly force by a civilian. That force (in public) can only be used is if it the very last resort meaning there are no other options available, including retreating from the encounter.

Her actions were not helpful and they were not legal. I am curious if the Pa is going to file charges.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Badgered1

She might get a verbal command to drop her weapon before being shot.

To help further that perspective had she been a cop her actions would have been no more justified.

She might. She also might not. Can't blame the officer, eh?

I just wonder what her grouping was. How many rounds? Hit percentage? What was behind the vehicle that would stop the bullets should she miss.
No reason at all for her to fire her weapon, and she may have put a lot of other people in danger.

a reply to: Badgered1

According to the article 3 rounds fired and only one hit - giving the car a flat tire.

a reply to: crazyewok

Never heard a concealed carry permit holder say that. If you'll notice, the CCW folks in this thread have condemned the lady. It keeps coming out of the anti gun camp quite often though.

originally posted by: RoScoLaz4

originally posted by: ~Lucidity Hero? Vigilante? Off-duty or retired cop?

how about trigger-happy moron? a perfect fit.

I was trying to be fair or something.

ETA: Not a lot to debate here. Even on Twitter (yeah, I typed that) pretty everyone agrees this was a boneheaded and/or illegal action on her part. Yet they let her go home.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Gothmog
Put a weapon in the hands of a responsible person - potential hero
Put a weapon in the hands of an idiot - bad times ahead.

haven't you heard?...they don't do backround checks for idiots, either.

I agree, the US government used to give psychological tests every year for military in stressful jobs (back in the 70s) . Why cant they give something like that as a test before the certification to own a gun ?