I didn’t know this: A police officer testified that he had warned neighbors about Arbery's alleged trespassing. He also testified that he had told the defendants about this -- and that he told the owner of the house to call the defendants if he saw such trespassing occurring.

"Do you have the right to chase down someone surround them and confront them?"

 In CO you do not.  There is no protected "right" to chase anyone for the means of protecting or retrieving personal property.  So in that case you assume the responsibility of your choice to chase somebody.

 Deadly force is not an option to protect property in CO unless that protection is against arson.  Arson is the only exclusion.


"If five or six men from the parking lot gathered around these people to stop them, who would object to that?"

 Typically law enforcement, and the defense attorney(s) of each of those men.  The general consensus is that stopping crime is not everyone's responsibility, reporting is.  Now if looters were endangering the store's Staff, that's different as the 6 men are assisting people, not objects.


"And if during that confrontation a fight broke out, a weapon was displayed and the thief tried to grab it from the person and he was shot and killed, is that murder?"

 Yes.  Now it isn't premeditated, but pulling a gun out to protect some items from a store is not good and won't win a self defense argument.  Pulling a gun out to protect Staff, or Yourself is different, and a more plausible use of that weapon.  However one needs to articulate that the use of deadly force was reasonable, which that in itself has tons and tons of variables.

 I agree that people may not stand for having their property taken, the issue of them not being taken to court most likely won't change unless we remove or alter those laws.

 If I gun down 2 out of 20 people robbing my shop there is no legal protection for that.  None.

 So in that case I would have to change law to allow for deadly force to be used in the protection of personal property.  Of course arguments against it will be people gunning down kids stealing a lawn ornament as a joke, people killing someone for stealing a pack of gum etc.  

 I think in the Walnut Creek situation there are more effective means of dealing with mass theft than murder, but not more efficient.  Killing a person stealing from Nordstrom and having it be allowable by US law would go a long way.

 I just can't see a large degree of acceptance by the general public for this idea.  I once had a pair of plyers I missed at a checkout counter in Lowes which could have been a death sentence if some trigger happy security staff noticed.

I agree with Jog. No one’s going to shoot someone because they forgot to pay for a pair of pliers at Lowe’s. Large scale smash and grabs are another matter. And I’m not proposing sharpshooters on rooftops. Now, when large scale riots with mass looting like last summer, I’ve no problem with shop owners and .22 rounds into the legs however.

Setting aside the hyperbole, I’m not sure if this organized “run in and run out” is a trend. If it is, we’ve got to do something.

Let’s imagine me,  Eegore, Jog, Mnspring and Sew are asking across the parking lot and observing the events in the video below. Would you intervene?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5liV1m1LuF0

"Because Dumbass rednecks can't tell the difference between looters with crowbars breaking displays and grabbing stuff and tossing it in a bag and someone behaving normally and going through the check out and paying.."


 I am not saying it is equivalent, I am saying that US law prohibits deadly force to protect property and for a reason.  I also said nothing about Rednecks.

 If US law states we can use deadly force to protect property, then it is legal to kill someone over property, even a pair of plyers, gum etc.  Unless the law is now stating there must be more than X-number of shoplifters, X-amount of value (what if an item is "priceless" due to sentimental value?

 It gets messy real fast trying to implement into law how to create a value structure and limits on how many humans must be partaking in order to allow, by law, deadly force to prevent inanimate objects from leaving a specific area.



"Now, when large scale riots with mass looting like last summer, I’ve no problem with shop owners and .22 rounds into the legs however."

 Again how would this legal definition be written to allow the maiming of humans to stop inanimate objects from leaving a specifically defined area?  That's going to be a very difficult thing to write, and enforce fairly, which is the point of laws.


 As for the video I would have recorded the VIN number since the plates were off, if I could, and had reasonable and reliable assistance that could keep an eye on the thieves as I did it.  I wouldn't physically intervene as no laundry soap is worth my life, or my time.  If one of you wanted to go intervene I would ask you this:  

 If one or both of those jerks pull out guns would your daughter want to visit you in a morgue or sit in court behind you?  Is anything in that cart worth your daughter's time burying you or supporting you at trial?  It's just groceries.

WebsterMark wrote on 11/26/21 at 07:37:07:


Yep !

I’ve been in smaller variations of this a couple of times. I stepped between two guys getting ready to fight in a bar and survived to tell the tale. I used my card to block someone attempting a road rage incident. I caught a kid stealing a bottle of wine at a grocery store but decided to let him go which I’ve always felt bad about.

Apparently yesterday a security guard was shot and killed in one of these incidents.

I think we as a society have to do something. So I think if I was in the situation I would point to all the men I could see and mount some type of defense.

True, but he was a white suburban kid so white privilege came into play so he was safe.