Posted on 04/29/2006 3:37:39 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Back then stealing 28$ worth of gas would have taken a tanker truck. :-)
Not sure where you are, but many places in SC are passing laws requiring pre-pay so the police don't have to deal with gas-and-gos. I'm thinking the shooter in this case will wish he was in one of those places before it is all over.
"...I usually skip those [prepay] places and prefer the normal pay places..."
Prepay is easy. What is the reason for your preference? Just select "fill" on the pump and put in as much (or as little) gasoline as you want. I do this all the time with my motorcycle...even though it will only accept about $10.00 if it is completely empty.
The proprietor should have thought of a better solution than shooting at people over an unpaid bill. If I was on the jury he wouldn't get convicted because I'm sure those kids have been dirtbag thieves for years...but he might not get so lucky with his jury.
~ Blue Jays ~
One more interesting thing about this story. A person by the same name and age of Dennis Cooper Spent time in prison in SC . I for some reason think it may be the same man.
Gas keeps going up all stations will have to have pay BEFORE you pump
imo
I don't use credit cards... So often to fill my car/truck up I end up standing in line twice. It is funny to watch the older generation try to figure out new fangled prepaid stuff. They horse around for 5 minutes trying to figure out what is wrong, all the while having the attendent holler at them thru the intercom that it is prepay only.
Also I imagine it costs the convenience stores money because a lot of purchases are made last second with the change given in stores after sales. I am guilty of this when I have a kid with me, 18 dollars of gas, get the kid a drink (and get a smile) with the change from the 20. I don't do this with pre-pay places. That seems to be the stores major argument when being forced to go to prepay only as a lot of towns have forced on c-stores.
Will the jury even be allowed to hear that the crooks were thieves?
If it were socially acceptable to shoot people for stealing merchadise, thefts would probably drop to the point that actually doing so would seldom be necessary.
Comes from being an ex small business owner - expense means $$$.
Your list only makes it halfway through just how expensive this is likely to be for the dimwitted Cooper.
Using the word expensive in the broader sense, yeah. I just wanted to make the point. But I would not at this point call him dimwitted - probably he was enraged, and not prepared. In other words, I have a quick temper, but while I would have been in even more trouble than him if I had used my .45 in Canada for any kind of protection of property, I did have a very unusual permit for a Colt Commander on my shop premises, so that I could go direct to a range without returning home.
Therefore I worked through all the scenarios that might occur where I might be tempted to go for it, and prepped myself not to do what he did - reach for a gun in a case of petty theft.
No. The "and's" and "or's" decide what is contiguous.
(1) must be true AND (2) must be true with either (2A) OR (2B) being true AND (3) must be true with either (3A) or (3B) being TRUE.
In BASIC or LISP computer programming, it'd look something like this:
(Power down Varmint
(WHILE
(1=TRUE) AND
((2A=TRUE) OR (2B=TRUE)) AND
((3A=TRUE) OR (3B=TRUE))
)
)
Of course this is armchair coaching and may have absolutely no relativity until after the fact...;-)
And I'm not saying the guy had no business defending his property on his property. His mistake is pursuing them, armed, onto the state's. When they left, he should have given their tag# and description to the authorities. Most places now have surveillence cameras photoing drive-offs and losing one's DL is one of the penalties for failing to pay. Numerous other expenses are also levied upon the guilty. If he has a photo system, he's in even more trouble because it would show an armed pursuit as a totally irrelavent act of aggression. If he didn't have security cameras, $28 should've meant nothing to him.
Last year we had a local c-store owner lose his life pursuing a thief of about the same amount. He grabbed on to the thief's car screaming stop stop stop ! He was thrown off and run over, dead within a few minutes. The fellow never stopped, it took over a year to find him (he finally turned himself in, after they were getting close to finding him). BTW.. he was also pulled onto "state" property... Guess that should of saved his life, guess the thief forgot to play by the rules...\ What is he "gasp" actually pulled off the perp's door handle or broke his glass trying to get the perp to stop.. had he lived would we be fining him today for trying to stop from being robbed?
Article below to prove what I say is true...
http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/1467933/posts
Also the c-store's property didn't stay on his property, his property was transfered. Just because something is moved, does not force you to lay down your rights of ownership and citizen's arrest powers. What is state's property, it is as much his as it was mine, not "States" property, but owned by law-abiding tax payers such as this c-store mans.
Most places now have surveillance cameras photoing drive-offs and losing one's DL is one of the penalties for failing to pay.
I guess you saw on TV the other day, that lady mayor that had her purse stolen from her car at a gas station. It was caught on camera, but I watched it and can honestly say, I can't give you a description of the perps. Grainy poor quality surveillance cameras leave a lot to be desired IMHO. But I guess that is ok, they only took her purse with credit cards and about 15 dollars. Besides she should of had her own camera in her car, because she didn't, she deserves everything she got according to your line of reasoning. Her thief's are still on the loose BTW... and it was caught on camera.
If he didn't have security cameras, $28 should've meant nothing to him.
That perplexes me the most about your post... what exactly is the dollar amount that "means something" to him??? Thief is thief, dollar amounts are only what us mortals use to give degrees of sin to crime.. There is no degrees of stealing to God, 1 million dollars to one person may equal 28 dollars to another, so basically you are discriminating against those of lesser means that have less to lose (but who value what they have more).
So what is the value you assign to a thief before it becomes defend-able to try and stop? Right now, 28 dollars is a lot of money for my family to lose.
If he didn't have security cameras, $28 should've meant nothing to him. Proverbs 17:15 15 Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent— the LORD detests them both.
Perhaps it wasn't the dollar amount, it was a matter of principle, a principle of right and wrong that you seem to have no regard of. When does "should've meant nothing" become "should've meant something".. it is a dollar amount that varies in varies from person to person in your perspective. I think a thief should be stopped whether the amount was 10 cents or 10 million. The amount should not be the question asked.
http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/1467933/posts
Just for fun, read what others are saying in this article about a fellow for NOT going after the perp with a gun? It is amazing to see the differences between the comments between the two articles.
Example below:
: "If you're running a gas station and someone fills up and drives off without paying, a rifle with tracer ammo would be fun."
Agreed, theft is theft, but simply put, risking one's own life and that of others over $28 is not wise, IMO.
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.