You are being pinged because of your interest in every-day citizens using firearms to save life and limb.
Add me! / Remove me
Visit the Armed Citizen Archives!
Posted on 10/30/2006 7:15:45 AM PST by DaveLoneRanger
A business owner who decided to stay at his establishment overnight had an unwelcome visitor early this morning.
According to the Sullivan County Sheriff's Department, Kenneth Harville, owner of Kenny's Bait and Tackle on state Highway 75, was awakened by the sound of breaking glass about 3 a.m. He reached the front of his store as a white male was climbing through a broken window near the cash register.
The burglar then started yelling to someone outside the business that someone was in the store. As the suspect crawled out the window, Harville fired one round towards him.
According to police, the unknown white male got into a light colored vehicle that someone else was driving and fled towards Blountville. Though several officers responded, they were unable to locate the vehicle or suspects.
The investigation is continuing by the Sullivan County Sheriff's Office, Criminal Investigation Division.
I'm glad they notified us twice that the bad guy was white.
Sounds like ol' Kenny may have had problems before with nocturnal "customers"...
Maybe I'm getting soft as I get older but I can't see the justice in shooting a man in the back when he doesn't seek a confrontation. Shoot out his car so he can't get away, sure... is it just me?
Just for you, mate.
Just you.
He "sought" a confrontation when he broke into the man's business.
This was borderline. I generally don't post stories where armed owners fire shots AFTER the burglars leave. This burglar may have been trying to retreat, but it's not clear how obvious that was, and in the meantime, this thug was still intruding on the store owner's property. Also, he only fired one round.
Ok.
Such an unusual circumstance that it was worth mentioning twice, and it further confirms the media code: no race mentioned means perpetrator was black.
Yeah: I caught that too.
startin' to feel better already
You are not getting soft. Many states have very strict laws in the use of deadly force. There are many states where the use of deadly force is only justified to save life or significant property. A burglar who decides it is time to leave prior to taking significant property in some states may not be a sufficient threat to life & property to warrant the use of deadly force.
In some states one can try apprehend a fleeing felon and use deadly forces to do so, but sometimes even if the people using such deadly force are uniformed police a jury may question the use of deadly force.
I agree with you. Deadly force should be used only as a last resort and only if one feels that one's life, the life of someone else, or significant property can only be protected by the use of deadly force. Likewise, one should not fire warning shots, shoot to wound, or shoot at a car (even if it is tempting) as you never know where a bullet may end up. As one of the masters of self defense training says, you should shoot to live, not shoot to kill.
"Kenny's Bait and Tackle on state Highway 75"
Classic!
It is just you, and other liberal people like you. If someone doesn't wish to be shot by a store owner or other law abiding citizen, they should not try to rob them or harm them. A sure fire way to stay out of trouble with citizens armed to the teeth is to not try to take their property by illegal means and not try to do physical harm to them. Running away when they see things have turned against their criminal activities will not save criminals, nor should it.
If he wasn't seeking a "confrontation" what the hell was he doing breaking into a business?
And by the third sentence. Any bets on how far down the article this description would have appeared (if at all) if it was otherwise?
Liberal? Me? So much for reasoned discourse...
It is not reasoned discourse when you advocate that criminals get a pass simply because when they are caught out they cut and run, it is advocating a liberal point of view, that of letting criminals off the hook if they say "I'm sorry", or say "excuse me, I must have broken into the wrong store, I didn't expect an angry propery owner to fight back." However you cut it, that is a liberal point of view, regardless if you embrace all of their views or not.
I'm not advocating letting the guy off... but I'm also not advocating the firing squad for an attempted burglary.
If you try "shooting out his car" with a handgun, you are about as likely to hit them.
The man "sought a confrontation" the instant he broke the window and crawled in. Anything that happens after that, including getting shot in the back, is on his head.
The owner knew he had been spotted, but it was dark and he had no way to know if the intruder would at any instant turn and fire at him.
That's why "theft during the nighttime" is a justification for use of deadly force in Texas and many other states. (It's Biblical too, Old Testament Biblical "“If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall be no blood shed for him.”"Exodus 22:2 which was followed by "If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him." This blood was by the relatives of the thief. Roman codes had similar distinctions. ).
And what would the cops do? In a best case they'd try to apprehend him, and if he fled, they'd shoot him. Why put your dirty work, and it is that, off on someone else?
The owner did not *know* he was fleeing, only that he was going back outside. Maybe for reinforcements, maybe to flee. He was still a "likely" a danger to the owner and his property, just not as likely as when he was coming in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.