Shoplifter killed by store clerk following more lenient self-defense laws in TN

[SgtScott31]

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070602/NEWS03/706020353/1017

The laws in TN have automatically given justification for homeowners to use lethal force in the case of a home invasion/burglary. New legislation has broadened these laws to any building and/or vehicles. Now we have a store clerk who blew away a guy for stealing. Is this too much leniency for gun owners?

[Gene L]

It was TN that producted the SCOTUS ruling that you can't shoot at a fleeing non-violent felon.

Edit: I read the reference, which I missed at first. That's essentially when GA law states, FL and other states. No duty to retreat when threatened by deadly force.

The guy who was busted for shooting the shoplifter is in deep doo-doo, however, if the article is correct. It only allows you to protect yourself against the use of force, or the threat of force.

Your car is the same as your house, 4th Ammendment-wise. They passed anti-hijacking laws in several states BEFORE the "No Duty To Retreat" law was passed by SCOTUS.

I don't see this as enlarging the powers of self defense in any way. You still better not shoot a fleeing guy who is offering not physical threat.

Also, GA has had a "home invastion" law for years which allows you to use deadly force and not face penalties. It's called the "Forcible Entry" law, not home invasion, as I recall. It means home invastion in an occupied home, though. Burglary isn't mentioned or considered a "home invaston" under normal circumstances, although burglary into an occupied residence (a VERY rare crime) would probably be seen as a justifiiable use of force.

[LeanG]

But Bilbrey, 45, violated the law by chasing Huddleston out of the store and shooting

I don't think that this is justifiable. His only argument could possibly be that he thought that "Huddleston" was going to retrieve a gun from his car.

[FrankCastle1]

I say good for them. It may make the next would be shoplifter think twice, knowing he could get shot for stealing

[Smurfette_76]

If he shot an unarmed man who was not a threat to him physically then I don't see how he's covered. While I'm not negating that the victim was a criminal, killing him's a bit extreme for the crime.

[LeanG]

I say good for them. It may make the next would be shoplifter think twice, knowing he could get shot for stealing

I disagree, only because you have stupid kids doing this kinda crap on a "dare".

[JJS]

I disagree, only because you have stupid kids doing this kinda crap on a "dare".

The less stupid people there are the better for us.

[Frank Booth]

It was TN that producted the SCOTUS ruling that you can't shoot at a fleeing non-violent felon.

Depends on what state you're in. TN V. Garner did not say that shooting a fleeing non-violent felon was a criminal offense. It was a civil case, not a criminal case that said you could be held CIVILLY liable if deadly force was not justified by the crime the guy was fleeing. Michigan still has a "Fleeing Felon" rule that says the police can shoot fleeing felons regardless of the felony if all other means to apprehend the fleeing felon are likely to fail, and if the police have reason to believe that the person fleeing is the one who commmitted the felony. The rule is the same for civilians except they must "know" the person they're shooting committed the felony.

A person who shoots a fleeing felon under these circumstances may not be prosecuted, although they may be successfully sued. Cops may be disciplined if the shooting was outside of department guidelines, which generally follow TN V. Garner, but not prosecuted.

[SgtScott31]

The new laws are all about self-defense and using lethal force. I hope people don't use this as an excuse to start shootin away at any person that is stealing their car stereo or kit kat bars.

[djack16]

If I had commanded him at gunpoint to freeze and he continued toward his vehicle I would definitely be worried about a weapon in there. It doesn't really look like a good shoot but it is kind of hard to say.

Stealing beer and ball caps...what a way to go. What an idiot.

[scratched13]

While I don't feel that he should have been killed for stealing (of course, that is the MEDIA'S spin - who knows the truth), I don't think that I will lose sleep over it.

[tony.o]

http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs....706020353/1017

The laws in TN have automatically given justification for homeowners to use lethal force in the case of a home invasion/burglary. New legislation has broadened these laws to any building and/or vehicles. Now we have a store clerk who blew away a guy for stealing. Is this too much leniency for gun owners?

He's charged with murder so whats the problem?
Store clerks know they can't shoot a shoplifter running out the door. I don't see the connection to any old, new or pending law, unless your a newspaper with some agenda.

[SgtScott31]

He's charged with murder so whats the problem?
Store clerks know they can't shoot a shoplifter running out the door. I don't see the connection to any old, new or pending law, unless your a newspaper with some agenda.

Obviously some of them don't know. I don't have any agenda, but I'm starting to wonder where they're going to draw the line. Sounds like more people with guns feeling they have the freedom to use them more often. While I don't have much sympathy for thieves, I caught shoplifters for years before getting into law enforcement work, and hardly any of them I would consider dangerous enough where they should be killed.

[Gene L]

I don't think more people with guns cause crime. Anyone in his right sense would know you can't shoot a shoplifter. Either the guy was stupid, or he was angry and did something that no state allows, by law. And if they did, the Supreme Court would not allow it.

The guy is under arrest for murder. That does not sound like a permissive attitude about civilian violence to me.

[pulicords]

The guy is under arrest for murder. That does not sound like a permissive attitude about civilian violence to me.

+1! The bottom line is that although private persons' "duty to retreat" has been reduced, the need to show that the use of deadly force was reasonable is just as important as before. That the media would jump on this case is to be expected. Even if the defendant was only shooting because he was mad at the thief, the paper has every reason to bring up the self-defense aspect just because of the recent change in the law and the opportunity to make a controversy.