Posted on 02/06/2017 12:37:14 PM PST by Brad from Tennessee
A suspected diaper thief shot dead outside a Pine Hills Wal-Mart on Saturday was a fugitive on felony probation at the time of his death, state records show.
Arthur “Art” Adams, 19, was a gang member who was planning to sell the diapers, Orange County sheriff’s Capt. Angelo Nieves said.
Adams had an arrest record dating to 2011, when he was 15 years old, records show. He was sentenced to four years of probation in June for two 2013 racketeering convictions.
A customer — a 50-year-old man — shot Adams after stepping in to help an employee who had followed Adams and two people with him to the parking lot, investigators said.
Nieves would not release the customer’s name, saying the information is “active criminal investigative information” and therefore exempt from disclosure under Florida’s public records law.
Adams had been arrested at least nine times on charges including grand theft, fleeing law enforcement and selling marijuana.
A Facebook page that appears to be his shows him grinning as he displays a large wad of cash in one hand and a gun in the other. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
LOL!...........
Same here. Let him have the diapers. My firearm is reserved for the situation where we start getting herded into the back room for an execution.
Unfair! How can the dead perp's homies find and kill the good guy if they won't release his name?
Yep, just good kids all.
I read that, but this will have to play out more before I know which way to go on that.
If he see’s a weapon, fine. I’m not trying to be unreasonable.
I’m simply reserving judgement at this point.
Isn't there an insurance policy to cover that? Carrying your liars...I mean, lawyers card could be evidence of premeditation!
It took 12 posts to get to a “Raising Arizona” reference? We’re slipping.
it was diaper caper, so could be a contained event....
I understand, but one doesn’t need see a weapon to believe their life is in immediate danger. It happens with cops all the time, for good reason.
Headed? He was already in the thick of it. The press is pushing the “diapers” part of the story to give the impression that a struggling father was stealing to provide much needed diapers for his family and then shot by an overzealous privileged person taking the law into his own hands. Next we will see. “He died for Pampers!!!”
I read another article that implied the shooter came to help a clerk who had pursued the shoplifter. Perhaps he thought he or she was being threatened?
The diapers part is media bull shit.
More media lies and propaganda. This guy was a one man crime wave and their getaway car was stolen after being recently carjacked. And they came out of the store with 2 FULL carts of unpaid merchandise.
Not having been there, and not having more than a sketchy description of what actually took place, I can’t say for sure if this guy was right or wrong.
If the guy is digging and whips around, then fine.
If he was just digging, not so much.
I’m not asking the shooter to take too big a risk, but I do want it to be a clean shoot. I’m sure you do also.
I can’t say for sure either. But based on reports here and elsewhere, if the good samaritan shooter felt threatened as reports indicate, and felt one of the suspect was going for a weapon to arm himself as reported....Well that would be hard to disprove...And considering the suspects backgrounds....
Bottom line here, I don’t think the shooter will have any issues. We’ll eventually find out.
Read the story, it says that the shooter thought the perp was arming himself and thus shot him....close enough
Me neither, but do we wait until his next crime when he seriously injures or kills someone.....it was bound to happen you know....he was a known gang member and that's what they do.
I hate headlines like this.
He didn’t get shot because he was stealing diapers. He got shot because he was fighting with the security guard.
Here’s a good analysis of a similar incident:
Comments by the person in question are reasoned to consider as part of the investigation. I agree with that. He may be telling the absolute truth too.
We agree we don’t know.
I was involved in a traffic accident last year. The light arrow turned green and I proceeded through the intersection turning left.
A driver coming in the opposite direction blew threw his red light and pulled directly in front of me. I broadsided his car.
I jammed on my brakes and swerved a bit left to minimize impact.
My car was barely damaged, and only at the immediate area of the corner of my vehicle, within ten inches.
His car had a deep impact and a long scrape.
From the impact damage it was crystal clear I told the truth.
He claimed that I sideswiped him.
My insurance company is still going through levels of arbitrators to get his company to cover my damages.
Never underestimate the ability for folks to come up with a reasonable alternative description of reality, even if there isn’t a bit of truth to it.
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.