To shoot or not to shoot looters, from the police standpoint

If it's your property, then shoot

If it's not your property, don't shoot

This is Obama/Holder's worst nightmare. Book it...any citizen that goes *vigilante* on those poor, misguided and lost-life's-lottery 'children' like Brown, Trayvon, et al....will have the wrath of the DOJ on their arse.

This will only happen - and be tolerated - in defense of life and limb; and not re property. Of course, it's get iffy, when life and limb are put on the line in defense of property.

This is a very tough question to answer.

Our society, culture and laws have evolved away from approval of killing people in order to protect mere property.

As such, anybody who kills looters, even if the looters have broken the windows, are in the store, and are actively grabbing stuff off of the shelves, may have a tough journey through the criminal justice system.

A store owner who killed some looters in the store would probably have to submit to police questioning, hire a criminal defense attorney, and sweat out the prosecutorial decision, not to mention Eric Holder's federal civil rights inquiry.

It might not be worth the effort.

If your store is in a "Loot Danger Zone", wouldn't it be better to pre-plan for the possibility that your store could be looted and destroyed, rather the rely on old-fashioned gun violence?

I'm not pulling a trigger to protect someone's property. I don't feel bad for anyone who is shot looting though.

quote:

---

They have enough resources to simply arrest them.

---

But as long as you're just afraid of getting arrested as opposed to getting shot, where is the deterrent not to loot? I know you don't have the answer but what percentage of looters get arrested? That's an answer we'll never know.

quote:

---

f your store is in a "Loot Danger Zone", wouldn't it be better to pre-plan for the possibility that your store could be looted and destroyed, rather the rely on old-fashioned gun violence?

---

Why in hell - in America - do we allow "loot danger zones" to exist??

If I go to my store to protect my property - required because the police will not do it - and if someone breaks my storefront with a crowbar and enters my store to steal my stuff, what am I to do?

I will shoot his goddam arse - that's what I will do.

Screw Blasio and Obama and Holder and Sharpton - all race hustlers of the highest order.

Notice I didn't say I'd shoot the SOB if he was black - I'd shoot a red-headed freckle-faced Scotsman breaking into my store with a crowbar.

You have no right to defend property with lethal force. You must be in fear for your life or serious bodily injury. Some states create a presumption of this with castle laws.

Before shooting at a looter, you would need to take a hard look at your state's laws regarding justifiable homicide.

I would like to think that all police officers and rational, moral citizens view the use of lethal force as a last resort.

But I guess we all know that's bullshite.

quote:

---

I personally think you should be able to defend property with lethal force.

---

Why? Assuming you do not fear for your safety or the safety of others, why would you take a life over something that can be replaced? Is it principle? If so, do you think it appropriate for private citizens to mete out justice? Is is some pent-up rage? Frustration with the constraints of civilization? Feelings of impotence? Actual impotence?

I've got a solution for business owners to deter looters.

Bird shot, #7.5, #8. It's not lethal unless shot from close range, and I promise you the looters would leave after being peppered with it.

Get on the roof of your business with a shotgun and pepper anyone who approaches your business, problem solved. No one dies, and your business isn't looted and burned.