Things are not going to end well for gun shop employee

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

4 minutes ago, 83Horn said:

FIFY.  Generalized name calling is easy.  That being said, back before I retired, I had to qualify to carry firearms, and the main point of emphasis in the training, in addition to the basic firearms safety rules regarding treating all firearms as if they are loaded, keeping firearm pointed in a safe direction, keeping finger off the trigger until ready to fire, etc., was that you do NOT use lethal force unless you believe your life, or the life of someone around you, is in IMMINENT danger; "imminent" being the key word.  That means you do not shoot someone through your front door because they rang your doorbell in the middle of the night, you do not shoot someone in a car that is in the process of turning around in your driveway, and you do not shoot someone who is running away from you after stealing some cash from your store.  If the thief was armed, it might be a different story.

Ok boomer.

[YGIFS 19450]

Not judging.  The shopkeeper has to deal with the fallout of everyone he knows looking at him different for the rest of his life, not me.  
 

Or maybe he was just a crazy Joe Devola.  

“Why is your door ajar and the full cash register wide open”

-I like to encourage intruders 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, irishtexan said:

Pretty sure things end just find for said gun shop employee. Especially now that we have an activist governor who will just pardon him if things don't work out the way the "good guys with guns" crowd want.

Unfortunately, this is the most correct response on here.

I was expecting a video of a guy holding up the store. No, he just saw a cash register with no one around it. He's dumb to do that, but dumb also shouldn't be a death sentence.

[ztejas 43449]

2 hours ago, Fuck Tim Beck said:

The gun shop employee should have been a cop. Then he'd have nothing to worry about. 

You win. 

[Captainant 27668]

It's also crazy to see so many surlyites completely fine with killing someone over a few hundred bucks. I get that you may be scared of him returning with a weapon to get 'cha, but the fact that he (apparently, based on reporting so far) was not violent towards any employees and just grabbed and went makes this feel just wrong.

The shooter ain't gonna have nothin happen to him, but I just can't imagine ending someone's life over a few hundred bucks.

 

Sure, I bet it makes you feel all good and ruggedly libertarian to say "stupid games, stupid prizes" - but with enough time, people you know and love will get pinched by those same rigid and regressive thought processes too

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

Gun owners are pussies 

The thief is likely higher in your evaluation, eh?

[tbone_ 14123]

It's also crazy to see so many surlyites completely fine with killing someone over a few hundred bucks. I get that you may be scared of him returning with a weapon to get 'cha, but the fact that he (apparently, based on reporting so far) was not violent towards any employees and just grabbed and went makes this feel just wrong.
The shooter ain't gonna have nothin happen to him, but I just can't imagine ending someone's life over a few hundred bucks.
 
Sure, I bet it makes you feel all good and ruggedly libertarian to say "stupid games, stupid prizes" - but with enough time, people you know and love will get pinched by those same rigid and regressive thought processes too

I’m also completely amazed by how many people (not just on surly) are ok with a dude just walking in and taking your shit. We all know nothing was going to happen to him.

Although honestly I have no idea why I would be amazed by anything anymore.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4976]

12 minutes ago, Captainant said:

It's also crazy to see so many surlyites completely fine with killing someone over a few hundred bucks. I get that you may be scared of him returning with a weapon to get 'cha, but the fact that he (apparently, based on reporting so far) was not violent towards any employees and just grabbed and went makes this feel just wrong.

The shooter ain't gonna have nothin happen to him, but I just can't imagine ending someone's life over a few hundred bucks.

 

Sure, I bet it makes you feel all good and ruggedly libertarian to say "stupid games, stupid prizes" - but with enough time, people you know and love will get pinched by those same rigid and regressive thought processes too

How do you feel about people who didn't get vaccinated and then died from Covid?

[Hermanator 7050]

This is a tough situation with no good answers. The thing is at what point do you allow a property owner to use force to protect their property? Where is the line? 

The national retail federation is claiming there's a theft epidemic happening in the US and that theft is increasing at a high rate compared to previous years. The problem is law enforcement doesn't keep accurate statistics on this so there's no good data to go off that would qualify for scientific analysis. All we have is the word of retailers and spotty reports that aren't carefully taken or kept because law enforcement gives small theft cases almost zero priority past taking a report. 

First we need to know the scope of the problem related to previous generations before we can accurately try to find solutions. But because 21st century Idiocracy America exists that won't be done. 

[royiv 9317]

Just now, tbone_ said:

I’m also completely amazed by how many people (not just on surly) are ok with a dude just walking in and taking your shit. We all know nothing was going to happen to him.

Unless I missed it, I haven’t seen anyone say that they’re okay with someone taking your shit. Some folks, myself included, don’t think it’s okay to end someone’s life when they pose no immediate threat to yourself or others. I’m not judge, jury and executioner. I get the frustration with thieves, they are pieces of shit, but I’m not handing out a very permanent solution over some cash.

[You don't know me 1161]

1 minute ago, Hermanator said:

This is a tough situation with no good answers. The thing is at what point do you allow a property owner to use force to protect their property? Where is the line? 

The national retail federation is claiming there's a theft epidemic happening in the US and that theft is increasing at a high rate compared to previous years. The problem is law enforcement doesn't keep accurate statistics on this so there's no good data to go off that would qualify for scientific analysis. All we have is the word of retailers and spotty reports that aren't carefully taken or kept because law enforcement gives small theft cases almost zero priority past taking a report. 

First we need to know the scope of the problem related to previous generations before we can accurately try to find solutions. But because 21st century Idiocracy America exists that won't be done. 

I'm just a layman, but once the person has left the store and is no longer a threat, I for one don't think that they should be shot in the back.

[Captainant 27668]

11 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

I’m also completely amazed by how many people (not just on surly) are ok with a dude just walking in and taking your shit. We all know nothing was going to happen to him.

Although honestly I have no idea why I would be amazed by anything anymore.

Well no, if I gave a rat's ass about my shit getting taken I wouldn't leave my cash register open and unattended and in a position to even allow that to happen.

It's almost like the employee WANTED to shoot someone and laid out a honeypot to get it.

 

Because look man I'm sympathetic to theft and being the victim of crime, but if you're gonna play the "individual responsibilities" card you have to abide by it too. If I leave my doors unlocked and my garage open and leave for a few days, I shouldn't be surprised when some of my shit is missing in my house. 

If it's normal for them leave the cash register open and unattended, to the point where a dude can just walk in and pocket cash, what sort of mickey mouse bullshit are they doing for shrinkage protection in their RETAIL store?

 

But yes, UNGA BUNGA shoot man because ME HAVE GUN!

Edited April 18, 2023 by Captainant

[Hermanator 7050]

Just now, You don't know me said:

I'm just a layman, but once the person has left the store and is no longer a threat, I for one don't think that they should be shot in the back.

So the line is you can use force to protect your property as long as they haven't left your premises and they must be at least partially facing you? 

When looked at in isolation of just one instance then yes this seems completely insane. But where we draw the line has to take in consideration the entire scope of the problem. So if this guy walks into your store and steals $100 worth of merchandise or cash five days a week you should just let him run away every time? What if he's young, big, and strong and the shop owner is old and small with zero chance to physically overpower him? What should their recourse be?

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

I’m also completely amazed by how many people (not just on surly) are ok with a dude just walking in and taking your shit. We all know nothing was going to happen to him.

Although honestly I have no idea why I would be amazed by anything anymore.

I guess we aren’t doing due process anymore?

Are you also saying you are in favor of the death penalty for theft of a few hundred dollars?

[You don't know me 1161]

3 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

So the line is you can use force to protect your property as long as they haven't left your premises and they must be at least partially facing you? 

When looked at in isolation of just one instance then yes this seems completely insane. But where we draw the line has to take in consideration the entire scope of the problem. So if this guy walks into your store and steals $100 worth of merchandise or cash five days a week you should just let him run away every time? What if he's young, big, and strong and the shop owner is old and small with zero chance to physically overpower him? What should their recourse be?

Situation dictates, to be honest.  If the person was facing me and had a weapon, they are walking away with whatever they have.  My life is simply not worth a bit of cash.  If they didn't have a weapon, I'm still not sure what I'd do.  I'm not Billy Badass.  I was a Marine, but I'm self-aware enough to know that I don't know. 

If I'm not the store owner, I'm not trying to stop anyone from stealing anything.  I'm trying to do as told and live another day.  If it's my house and my family is there, I'm sure that my actions would be far different.  Hopefully I never have to find out what I'd do in a situation like that.

[Cousin Strawberry 1261]

3 hours ago, YGIFS said:

It also doesn't make it clear whether the man robbed the place initially with a gun of his own.  It seems to be clear he took some cash, fled, and was shot in the back and found unarmed.  But what transpired inside?  

Do most gun shops have CCTV cameras inside?  It certainly appears the strip center has them.

Did you not watch the video?  He enters the store, sees an open cash register, grabs cash and flees.  Employee shoots him in the back. No weapon, no robbery.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4976]

4 minutes ago, Cousin Strawberry said:

Did you not watch the video?  He enters the store, sees an open cash register, grabs cash and flees.  Employee shoots him in the back. No weapon, no robbery.

That's aggravated robbery.

Sec. 29.02. ROBBERY. (a) A person commits an offense if, in the course of committing theft as defined in Chapter 31 and with intent to obtain or maintain control of the property, he:

(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or

(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens or places another in fear of imminent bodily injury or death.

(b) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.

But it still looks like it's not robbery.

Edited April 18, 2023 by NotActuallyALonghorn

[YGIFS 19450]

12 minutes ago, Cousin Strawberry said:

Did you not watch the video?  He enters the store, sees an open cash register, grabs cash and flees.  Employee shoots him in the back. No weapon, no robbery.

Didn’t watch the whole thing once I realized what it was all gonna show.  
 

I played every violent video game and watched every violent movie I could as a younger person for decades.  And they told me it woulD wind me up to be a violent person.  But it didn’t. 
 

and every single day in this country, there are posted links to cop killings, gang shootouts, wrongful deaths, mass shootings, and people shooting people in the ground/in the back/on their porch.  
 

you can breakdown the footage for me and we can all talk ballistics and victim’s past drug use.  But I can’t watch real footage of humans being murdered.  I just can’t.  I know it make me a more informed commentator on the situation but it’s a rabbit hole I don’t want go down.  I’ve seen enough death in real life, i Don’t need internet footage of other real life shootings.  Sorry for annoying you 

[Hermanator 7050]

23 minutes ago, You don't know me said:

Situation dictates, to be honest.  If the person was facing me and had a weapon, they are walking away with whatever they have.  My life is simply not worth a bit of cash.  If they didn't have a weapon, I'm still not sure what I'd do.  I'm not Billy Badass.  I was a Marine, but I'm self-aware enough to know that I don't know. 

If I'm not the store owner, I'm not trying to stop anyone from stealing anything.  I'm trying to do as told and live another day.  If it's my house and my family is there, I'm sure that my actions would be far different.  Hopefully I never have to find out what I'd do in a situation like that.

Yeah I agree. There's just tons of nuance here. I definitely thing there's a difference between an employee at a chain store like this goober and a small business mom and pop shop owner. The single small business has a much lower threshold for loss before it bankrupts their business and takes away their livelihood. That's a big problem. 

And then there's merit to the notion if you're dumb enough to rob a gun store then what can you expect? Darwin award nominee for sure in this case. I personally don't believe what this guy did should be legal in this case though. 

I just wish the people in charge of legislating this actually cared about doing it the best way possible and not just pandering for votes.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4976]

Yeah, I don't really want to see videos of people dieing either, so I avoid them unless they are videos of Ukrainian drones dropping grenades on Russians. 

[tbone_ 14123]

I guess we aren’t doing due process anymore?

Are you also saying you are in favor of the death penalty for theft of a few hundred dollars?

Of course we’re doing due process. Because no one gives a shit about my views.

But since you asked, I’m all for whatever would deter piece of shit thieves from stealing shit. And in my view the dollar amount isn’t all that relevant. If it isn’t yours it isn’t yours.

I fucking hate thievery. And so yea in my fantasy world where I’m czar, I’d make the punishment 10x the crime and we’d get less of it. Fuck your rights if you steal shit.

Here in the real world, I guess motherfuckers can just keep taking shit that isn’t theirs with no consequences. Such is life.

[Hermanator 7050]

7 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

Didn’t watch the whole thing once I realized what it was all gonna show.  
 

 

Jesus Johnny. This guy didn't want to watch unless it showed the dude getting blasted in the face

[You don't know me 1161]

3 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

Yeah I agree. There's just tons of nuance here. I definitely thing there's a difference between an employee at a chain store like this goober and a small business mom and pop shop owner. The single small business has a much lower threshold for loss before it bankrupts their business and takes away their livelihood. That's a big problem. 

And then there's merit to the notion if you're dumb enough to rob a gun store then what can you expect? Darwin award nominee for sure in this case. I personally don't believe what this guy did should be legal in this case though. 

I just wish the people in charge of legislating this actually cared about doing it the best way possible and not just pandering for votes.

Good points, all of them.  I'm not going to watch the video either, as I have no desire to see a human being killed.  I wonder if this was a crime of opportunity.  Did he go into the store with the intention of robbing it, or was the register open and he saw an opportunity.  Stupid, no doubt, but not the same level of stupid as going into a gun store intent on robbing it.  

Your points prior are good to bring up.  What is the small family owned business supposed to do?  Insurance only covers so much.  Are police able to do anything about it?  Where I live has a population of about 10K.  At least a couple of times a week our police department is posting "help us locate this individual" still photos from Walmart and QT security video of people in the act of walking out the doors with unpaid merchandise.  That appears to be the extent of what they do.  I have no idea what it's like for the small business owner, but it can't be good.

[Patricio Swayze 17058]

Of course we’re doing due process. Because no one gives a shit about my views.

But since you asked, I’m all for whatever would deter piece of shit thieves from stealing shit. And in my view the dollar amount isn’t all that relevant. If it isn’t yours it isn’t yours.

I fucking hate thievery. And so yea in my fantasy world where I’m czar, I’d make the punishment 10x the crime and we’d get less of it. Fuck your rights if you steal shit.

Here in the real world, I guess motherfuckers can just keep taking shit that isn’t theirs with no consequences. Such is life.

I’m glad you aren’t the czar.

[52-80 19158]

4 hours ago, Steel Shank said:

If I were making a list of places to rob, I don't think I'd have 'gun store' near the top.

But that's just me.

No shit. Why risk it at a gun store when you can raid the CVS/Walgreens much more casually. 

[Cheeseweasel 26438]

1 hour ago, Captainant said:

It's also crazy to see so many surlyites completely fine with killing someone over a few hundred bucks. I get that you may be scared of him returning with a weapon to get 'cha, but the fact that he (apparently, based on reporting so far) was not violent towards any employees and just grabbed and went makes this feel just wrong.

The shooter ain't gonna have nothin happen to him, but I just can't imagine ending someone's life over a few hundred bucks.

 

Sure, I bet it makes you feel all good and ruggedly libertarian to say "stupid games, stupid prizes" - but with enough time, people you know and love will get pinched by those same rigid and regressive thought processes too

We should just lower the penalties for crime so these things wouldn't happen and everything will be better.

[Sawbonz 27562]

3 hours ago, GoPokes83 said:

Register was unattended

 

 

 

['stache 21815]

32 minutes ago, tbone_ said:

Of course we’re doing due process. Because no one gives a shit about my views.

But since you asked, I’m all for whatever would deter piece of shit thieves from stealing shit. And in my view the dollar amount isn’t all that relevant. If it isn’t yours it isn’t yours.

I fucking hate thievery. And so yea in my fantasy world where I’m czar, I’d make the punishment 10x the crime and we’d get less of it. Fuck your rights if you steal shit.

Here in the real world, I guess motherfuckers can just keep taking shit that isn’t theirs with no consequences. Such is life.

There are plenty of countries you can move to if this is what you think is good policy. Your wife or future wife can find plenty of fancy Hijabs.

[High Plains Drifter 11049]

 

This wasn't the shooter protecting anybody or his property or his business or any shit like that.

This was vigilantism. It was reckless, it was dangerous, it was uncalled for, it was unnecessary.

The shooter should face charges.

 

 

 

[Parliament 14260]

This is another example where both guys are wrong.  Steal from a gun owner and you might get shot.  And don't shoot people in the back as they run away.  It's a nuance I hope we can all recognize.

[Sawbonz 27562]

I’m not glad the dude is dead but if he had walked past the store he’d be alive today. Or I guess if he had zigged or zagged a bit

 

Darwin Award for him 

[GoPokes83 2240]

Read somewhere the gun store guy taught some of the gun safety classes they have at the store. Don’t know how it may play into it but when I got my CC they made it very plain that you only use your weapon if your life is in imminent danger. Not sure some dumbass with a fist full of cash running away from you qualifies. Anyway this guy’s screwed, Quanell X is involved!

[Gatorubet 30238]

2 hours ago, Hermanator said:

So the line is you can use force to protect your property as long as they haven't left your premises and they must be at least partially facing you? 

When looked at in isolation of just one instance then yes this seems completely insane. But where we draw the line has to take in consideration the entire scope of the problem. So if this guy walks into your store and steals $100 worth of merchandise or cash five days a week you should just let him run away every time? What if he's young, big, and strong and the shop owner is old and small with zero chance to physically overpower him? What should their recourse be?

Call the cops.  Put the register in bulletproof glass cage. Hire security.

 I hope everyone who is fine with shooting him in the back gets what karma brings. Dipshits. A pack of dipshits all up in here.

[Hermanator 7050]

5 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Call the cops.  Put the register in bulletproof glass cage. Hire security.

 

It's already established cops don't put priority on these theft cases. That won't help the small business owner. It's not practical to put the register in a bulletproof case, and small businesses have thin margins so they can't afford security. Those aren't solutions. 

Practical solutions are to either find a way to curb the occurrence of theft or to empower the property owner to use force to protect their own property. But it all has to be within a proper framework to discourage lawlessness and to ensure fair treatment under the law. Which doesn't happen because the lawmakers aren't interested in solving the problem.

It's absolutely crucial to the economic well-being of this country for small business owners to be able to protect their investment from theft. Not allowing them to do so threatens our society as a whole. 

[conVINCEd 21469]

4 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

It's already established cops don't put priority on these theft cases. That won't help the small business owner. It's not practical to put the register in a bulletproof case, and small businesses have thin margins so they can't afford security. Those aren't solutions. 

Practical solutions are to either find a way to curb the occurrence of theft or to empower the property owner to use force to protect their own property. But it all has to be within a proper framework to discourage lawlessness and to ensure fair treatment under the law. Which doesn't happen because the lawmakers aren't interested in solving the problem.

It's absolutely crucial to the economic well-being of this country for small business owners to be able to protect their investment from theft. Not allowing them to do so threatens our society as a whole. 

There is insurance coverage available to protect their investment.

[Beau Vine 54230]

5 hours ago, GoPokes83 said:

IIRC he had a “sharp object “ in his hand. Looking at the video it doesn’t look like he said anything to the shooter or anyone else. Register was unattended, he walks up opens it takes cash and is leaving before anyone notices.

Part of me wonders if the register was purposefully left unattended so that Mr. Tiny Pecker would have a excuse to shoot someone in the back.

[Biff Tannen 45685]

Exhausting thread is exhausting. 

[Beau Vine 54230]

4 hours ago, DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt said:

sure. pretend he called you a bitchmade pussy with a room temp IQ.

I hear that the truth is the ultimate defense.

[Beau Vine 54230]

3 hours ago, Captainant said:

It's also crazy to see so many surlyites completely fine with killing someone over a few hundred bucks. I get that you may be scared of him returning with a weapon to get 'cha, but the fact that he (apparently, based on reporting so far) was not violent towards any employees and just grabbed and went makes this feel just wrong.

The shooter ain't gonna have nothin happen to him, but I just can't imagine ending someone's life over a few hundred bucks.

And that few hundred bucks was so goddamn important that it was just sitting there unattended while the store was open for business.

[Beau Vine 54230]

3 hours ago, Hermanator said:

So the line is you can use force to protect your property as long as they haven't left your premises and they must be at least partially facing you? 

When looked at in isolation of just one instance then yes this seems completely insane. But where we draw the line has to take in consideration the entire scope of the problem. So if this guy walks into your store and steals $100 worth of merchandise or cash five days a week you should just let him run away every time? What if he's young, big, and strong and the shop owner is old and small with zero chance to physically overpower him? What should their recourse be?

Well, they could set up some sort of elaborate Scooby Doo-style trap for him for one...

[Hammerin Hank 1227]

34 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

It's already established cops don't put priority on these theft cases. That won't help the small business owner. It's not practical to put the register in a bulletproof case, and small businesses have thin margins so they can't afford security. Those aren't solutions. 

Practical solutions are to either find a way to curb the occurrence of theft or to empower the property owner to use force to protect their own property. But it all has to be within a proper framework to discourage lawlessness and to ensure fair treatment under the law. Which doesn't happen because the lawmakers aren't interested in solving the problem.

It's absolutely crucial to the economic well-being of this country for small business owners to be able to protect their investment from theft. Not allowing them to do so threatens our society as a whole. 

A more cost effective solution would be to require the employees to not leave the cash register unattended.

[Beau Vine 54230]

41 minutes ago, Hermanator said:

It's absolutely crucial to the economic well-being of this country for small business owners to be able to protect their investment from theft. Not allowing them to do so threatens our society as a whole. 

THEY LEFT THEIR FUCKING CASH SITTING RIGHT OUT IN THE FUCKING OPEN DURING BUSINESS HOURS.   

They literally chose not to protect their investment from theft.  

[SydneyCarton 48106]

I wonder what Jesus would have to say about shooting a thief in the back as they were running away from you? Maybe the "unless that bitch took your shit" got scratched off of the Thou Shall Not Kill inscription, or it was lost when Moses smashed those motherfuckers. 

I wonder what dollar amount of items makes shooting someone in the back justified in the eyes of the Lord?

2 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

THEY LEFT THEIR FUCKING CASH SITTING RIGHT OUT IN THE FUCKING OPEN DURING BUSINESS HOURS.   

They literally chose not to protect their investment from theft.  

Everything I learned from Dante in Clerks about the psychology of people being honest when no one is around and they think they're being watched has been invalidated. I'm crushed. 

[tbone_ 14123]

THEY LEFT THEIR FUCKING CASH SITTING RIGHT OUT IN THE FUCKING OPEN DURING BUSINESS HOURS.   
They literally chose not to protect their investment from theft.  

This line of thinking cracks me up.

Yea I’m a dumbass if I leave my garage door open and someone steals my bike. But that in no way puts me at the same level as the subhuman piece of shit who fucking comes onto my property and rides off with it. Fuck you. Don’t fucking steal shit.

Also, wouldn’t surprise me at all, as others have been saying, if Billy redneck gun owner was trying to entice someone. So much stupid everywhere. But that’s the thing about enticement, someone still has to willingly be a piece of shit thief.

[Hermanator 7050]

15 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

THEY LEFT THEIR FUCKING CASH SITTING RIGHT OUT IN THE FUCKING OPEN DURING BUSINESS HOURS.   

They literally chose not to protect their investment from theft.  

IM NOT TALKING ABOUT THIS ONE CASE

I already said there's a big difference between chain store employee and single mom and pop style small business owner. These goobers were employees and it's a different responsibility for them. 

I'm asking what should the line be because unlike even regional chain gun stores like this one the mom and pop's insurance isn't covering fully for losses and with their livelihood at risk the stakes are much higher for them. What should they do when people walk in and steal from them over and over and over and risk putting them out of business? 

Edited April 18, 2023 by Hermanator

[52-80 19158]

8 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I wonder what Jesus would have to say about shooting a thief in the back as they were running away from you?

He and his dad enacted infanticide on an entire nation due to a single despotic pharoah so maybe hes not the best example to follow

[YGIFS 19450]

What's the point of having more laws against thievery/larceny if people are just gonna steal anyway?  

[Captainant 27668]

1 minute ago, 52-80 said:

He and his dad enacted infanticide on an entire nation due to a single despotic pharoah so maybe hes not the best example to follow

Point of order: Jesus didn't exist during the time of Moses. Sunday school out front shoulda told ya

[Hermanator 7050]

14 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I wonder what Jesus would have to say about shooting a thief in the back as they were running away from you? Maybe the "unless that bitch took your shit" got scratched off of the Thou Shall Not Kill inscription, or it was lost when Moses smashed those motherfuckers. 

I wonder what dollar amount of items makes shooting someone in the back justified in the eyes of the Lord?

Everything I learned from Dante in Clerks about the psychology of people being honest when no one is around and they think they're being watched has been invalidated. I'm crushed. 

What about for the millions of people who don't believe in Jesus or a Lord and are confronted with the realities we know: that i need to put food on my plate and shelter over my head to survive and thrive in this reality. Because Jesus and the Lord sure as fuck aren't doing it. 

It's easy to sit here detached from the people being ripped off and spout religious dogma but be the person having your way of making a living being stolen from you and see how comforting those words are when you're filing bankruptcy. 

[Armybrat 40845]

5 hours ago, Handcruser said:

Carters country is a nice store

Alcohol Tobacco Firearms?

Sounds like the typical Red State convenience store.

Shooting a feeling criminal scumbag in the back isn’t really the best option, IMO, as there are too many legal complications & paperwork. 
Not something anyone I know would do, but I wasn’t there.