In California they know how to sniff out those fake DGUs. Of course it helps when the victim is still alive. This incident has a little bit of that vigilante flavor to it, don't you think? It's got that typical attitude of righteous gun owners towards criminals, even petty ones.A Lodi storekeeper was arrested on Tuesday after shooting a man suspected of stealing beer from his shop.Gurminder "Gary" Parmar shot 21-year-old Christopher Driggers in the upper shoulder area between his neck and shoulder after Driggers allegedly stole the beer.Police were notified of the shooting around 9:49 p.m. by a customer who claimed they saw Driggers flee the shop on foot after the shooting. Officers responded to the scene and soon located Driggers and the beer.Following an ensuing investigation of the incident, Parmar was arrested and charged with Assault with a Deadly Weapon.In California, a person is allowed to use deadly force when their life or the life of someone around them is "immediately threatened." Since Driggers never had a weapon or made any type of threat towards Parmar, the shopkeeper was not permitted to use deadly force.
An interesting thing about this story is the look of the shopkeeper. If you listen to our gun-rights friends you wouldn't think a guy like that could own a gun legally. According to them, you have to be rich and famous, or at least white.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
No commodity in that store (even beer!) was worth the life of a person. They were right to arrest the store owner.ReplyDelete
Clearly, California law needs to be changed. Would the thief have been caught if he hadn't been injured? As the majority of commentors on the news site agree, this shows what's wrong with the law. The cops charge a good citizen, and who knows what happens to the thug.ReplyDelete
This is one of many reasons why we can't trust or support gun control advocates. Your side stands with thugs, not good citizens.
Greg, You're really calling the shop keeper a good citizen? What's the matter with you?Delete
People have the right to protect their property. The state sometimes tries to remove that right, but that's an example of illegitimate government power. Some people have to put their hands on the burner to know that the stove is hot. The message that this thief should be learning is that crime doesn't pay, but since the store owner is being charged, the thief will get an entirely different message.Delete
You mean there's a state, other than Texas, that allows deadly force in the protection of property? This is news to me. I think most people of good sense agree that it is wrong to shoot people over property. This incident would have been illegal in all 50 states, even Texas, because Texas only allows deadly force in the protection of property in very limited circumstances.Delete
You have a right to protect property, using force. You don't have a right to use deadly force to protect property. The issue here was not that you have to allow the thief to get away with it, but that the level of forced used in this circumstance, deadly force, was unlawful. It should be unlawful in this circumstance.
As we've seen on the question of gun control, rights and the law don't always overlap. Morally, we have the right to protect our property with whatever force is required. The law will often take a different view. To avoid running afoul of the law, I'll follow the rules, but that doesn't mean that I have to call it right.Delete
Greg, it cannot be considered "right" to kill someone for taking your stuff.Delete
On the other hand: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IVtjIbt0iA&feature=relatedReplyDelete
Thanks, I posted it. But what's your point?Delete
If you cant protect what is yours, what is the point. If nothing happened to the criminal what would keep him and his friends from coming back and getting all the free groceries they could steal over and over again? ---Im with the store keeper on this, its time to end the protecting of criminals Ca. is back wards on many of these issues.ReplyDelete
You think deadly force is justified in a case like this?Delete
Sounds like an appropriate prosecution to me. It's illegal and immoral to shoot someone for shoplifting. He was not in reasonable fear of grave bodily injury or death at the time of the shooting.ReplyDelete
Congratulations! You found a real case of vigilantism! And for it he was appropriately punished.
Oh, no congratulations is necessary. These cases are a dime a dozen.Delete
MikeB: “An interesting thing about this story is the look of the shopkeeper. If you listen to our gun-rights friends you wouldn't think a guy like that could own a gun legally. According to them, you have to be rich and famous, or at least white.”ReplyDelete
You are confusing simple ownership with a CCW permit. The permits are may-issue, and in the urban counties will only go to people who are connected. You don’t need a CCW permit to carry a gun in your home, or in your place of business. I very much doubt this guy had a permit.
And I very much doubt that carry permits "will only go to people who are connected." That's a gun-rights myth about may issue states.Delete
In the bay area, LA, and San Diego- this is absolutely true. Why don't you disprove it with an antidote though. Show me one "normal joe" with a CCW from one of these counties.Delete
Mike, audits of LTC permits for all CA counties are available, as are good cause statements.Delete
"very much doubting" and proof by vigorous assertion does not make your false statement any more true.
But worry not, soon enough there will be no more 'may issue' states and you won't have to go barking up that tree any longer.
TS correct on this, it is next to impossible to get a CCW unless you are connected. You could jump through all of the hoops, spend all of the time and money, meet all of the qualifications, and still get denied. That's because the process is subjective in may issue states.Delete
"The Los Angeles County Sheriff's own policy on the issuance of licenses enabling private citizens to carry concealed weapons is blunt: "The Department's overriding policy is that no concealed weapons license should be granted merely for the personal convenience of the applicant.""
Or, here's a cut and paste from the San Diego County Sheriff Website:
The Sheriff may issue a concealed weapon license to law abiding residents of San Diego County provided that all of the following criteria are met:
The applicant is of good moral character
The applicant demonstrates good cause for the issuance of the license
The applicant presents proof of residency within San Diego County
Mikeb, just imagine that you had to get beg for permission under a discretionary system to post articles on-line. Rights are rights.Delete
Begging for permission wouldn't be so bad if the answer were “yes”. The answer is not only “no”, but you can’t even apply so as not to show the paper trail of denials against the issuances to political backers of the sheriffs.Delete
We're not talking about "begging permission" any more than you have to "beg permission" to drive a car. You sound like little babies.Delete
Except that they grant me permission to drive a car. They have a shall-issue driver's license policy.Delete
Mikeb, TS beat me to it, but I'll add my answer. Drivers' licenses are shall issue in every state and in D.C., and a license in one jurisdiction is good in all. Once you get a license, barring some major screwup, there are no tests again, and it gets renewed on the same day.Delete
But you do keep using that little babies line. You probably would have said the same thing to Sam Adams, to George Washington, to Thomas Jefferson, et al. Would you have said the same thing to Malcolm X? How about Medgar Evers? After all, they too were demanding their rights.
The "little baby" part is about calling it "begging."Delete
To the founding fathers I would ask how could they deny those precious rights to women and blacks.
The others you mentioned are civil rights heroes, which have nothing to do with gun-rights fanatics. Naturally you want to compare yourselves to them, but no one believes that crap.