Non-story. Shooting a non-armed shoplifter for stealing a single bottle of alcohol is exercising responsible gun ownership, nothing more.

Dumbass, every knows the Hendersons' light post is the safe zone. You have to tag it or else you're still in the game

Pocket Ninja: Non-story. Shooting a non-armed shoplifter for stealing a single bottle of alcohol is exercising responsible gun ownership, nothing more.

Who said he was unarmed? This article doesn't.

Fine the shop owner a huge amount of money, and give that money to the state. Everybody wins!

Well, everybody minus the shoplifter and store owner, but close enough.

MacEnvy: Pocket Ninja: Non-story. Shooting a non-armed shoplifter for stealing a single bottle of alcohol is exercising responsible gun ownership, nothing more.

Who said he was unarmed? This article doesn't.

We know for a fact he was armed with a bottle.

" pursued Dewberry out of the store with a loaded .357 revolver. Dewberry was hit while in the backseat of a getaway car."

The shop owner went to far. I'd be okay if he shot him in the store, but chasing him down isn't very smart.

MacEnvy: Pocket Ninja: Non-story. Shooting a non-armed shoplifter for stealing a single bottle of alcohol is exercising responsible gun ownership, nothing more.

Who said he was unarmed? This article doesn't.

how about "non-threatening"... I mean, the guy was getting in the backseat of a car and, I'm assuming, at least several feet away from the shop owner. Dude's actions were a tad overblown.

I have no love for shoplifters and the gun people are going to call me every variation of the word liberal there is but he didn't deserve to get shot in the jaw over a bottle of hooch. I don't think he needs to sue though either.

Shop owner should have, at MOST, shot the tires out.
 
Or how about just get a license plate and call the cops?  Criminals like this are generally pretty dumb.  Cops probably would have tracked him down in no time.

Steal the hooch, you've screwed the pooch.

People like this steal because they know the worse they'll get out of it is a few hours in jail and maybe some probation...we need to use to use proper deterrents....

downstairs: Shop owner should have, at MOST, shot the tires out.

Or how about just get a license plate and call the cops? Criminals like this are generally pretty dumb. Cops probably would have tracked him down in no time.

Or even simply brandish the gun and say, "Hey, asshole, put the bottle on the ground and get the fark out of here."?

If you're gonna shoot, shoot to kill. A corpse isn't going to get up and sue your ass.

/_{amidoinitright?}

Snarfangel: MacEnvy: Pocket Ninja: Non-story. Shooting a non-armed shoplifter for stealing a single bottle of alcohol is exercising responsible gun ownership, nothing more.

Who said he was unarmed? This article doesn't.

We know for a fact he was armed with a bottle.

And he might have had Skittles.

Shoplifters of the world, unite and take over.

let's give some credit. hit the guy in the face while he was in a getaway car and didn't kill him.

Friskya: If you're gonna shoot, shoot to kill. A corpse isn't going to get up and sue your ass.

/amidoinitright?

Would be pretty hard to claim that shooting someone in the face wasn't with the intention to kill.

/yeahuare!!

People are going to say that "a bottle of booze isn't worth killing someone over". And it probably isn't looked at that way. However, the shoplifter should know that, in this country, shop clerks can be armed. Hell, a liquor store owner is MOST LIKELY armed. So, when he went in and stole from owner, the shoplifter knew there was a risk of being shot, and took the chance anyway. He decided that the bottle of vodka was worth risking his life over.

after the emotionally traumatic incident, this shoplifter probably will feel too afraid or anxious to continue his career as a criminal. He shouldn't just receive compensation for his pain and suffering, his lost income from all the robberies he won't commit should also be added to the lawsuit.

All this for a bottle of vodka.

Solution: Don't steal.

Friskya: If you're gonna shoot, shoot to kill. A corpse isn't going to get up and sue your ass.

/amidoinitright?

Yes.
Like that chick that stole from a Walmart and got shot in the neck; although in this case, the thief wasn't trying to run the owner over, but still... the guy wouldn't have got shot if he didn't try to steal. Think it through a little better next time.

I'm of mixed feelings.

I can reasonably see criminal charges into the shop owner; maybe reckless use of a deadly weapon or something along those lines.

But the fact remains, Mr. Shoplifter, is that you were a criminal committing a criminal act. No money or profit for you.

Its not self defense if you're chasing them.

Subby should be shot in the face for misspelling the liquor type wrong in the headline.
/vodak

kbronsito: after the emotionally traumatic incident, this shoplifter probably will feel too afraid or anxious to continue his career as a criminal. He shouldn't just receive compensation for his pain and suffering, his lost income from all the robberies he won't commit should also be added to the lawsuit.

And he'll have trouble picking up chicks with a farked-up face, so add loss of consortium to the list.

He got his shot of vodka.

devildog123: People are going to say that "a bottle of booze isn't worth killing someone over". And it probably isn't looked at that way. However, the shoplifter should know that, in this country, shop clerks can be armed. Hell, a liquor store owner is MOST LIKELY armed. So, when he went in and stole from owner, the shoplifter knew there was a risk of being shot, and took the chance anyway. He decided that the bottle of vodka was worth risking his life over.

Shoot him in the store, I'm fine with that, but once you start shooting OUTSIDE you put the entire public at risk, and personally, I'm not willing to get pegged walking down the street because you don't want your business to take a $5 loss. It's an unacceptable risk considering the marginal benefit it would allow. Charge him with unlawful or reckless discharge, mandatory gun safety class and be done with it.

devildog123: People are going to say that "a bottle of booze isn't worth killing someone over". And it probably isn't looked at that way. However, the shoplifter should know that, in this country, shop clerks can be armed. Hell, a liquor store owner is MOST LIKELY armed. So, when he went in and stole from owner, the shoplifter knew there was a risk of being shot, and took the chance anyway. He decided that the bottle of vodka was worth risking his life over.

An occupational hazard of being a carpenter is you might hit your thumb with a hammer; for a nurse, you might get a needle stick. If you choose to be a felon you might get lead poisoning.

I know a guy who interrupted a burglary at his home. As he was pulling into his driveway, he saw a van backed up to his garage. One of the burglars ran towards him, aiming a pistol. My friend hit the gas pedal and ran the burglar over, killing him (he was not charged). When the cops got there, they advised him to put all of his assets into his baby son's name immediately, because he could count on the burglar's family suing him. And that's exactly what happened. The burglar's family (who swore he was a good boy, sang in the church choir, a star athlete and honor roll student who had a record a mile long) got nada.

/Gun-owning liberal with no tolerance for thieves.

Pocket Ninja: Non-story. Shooting a non-armed shoplifter for stealing a single bottle of alcohol is exercising responsible gun ownership, nothing more.

Having taken the concealed-carry course and having the license to carry, I would make two comments:

1. It is totally legitimate to shoot even an un-armed robber (there is a reasonable case that you are defending your own - OR someone else's [which counts!]) - even from behind in certain circumstances (say the thief has his back to you but is endangering the clerk).

2. It is NOT self-defense to shoot at a car driving away. There is no case for personal threat, period.

Having said that, this POS doesn't deserve a dime. He decided to get on the bull, now he can take the horns. F*ck him.

Satanic_Hamster: But the fact remains, Mr. Shoplifter, is that you were a criminal committing a criminal act. No money or profit for you

I got no problem with that logic here...

Still the owner should be punished (not much imho).

DaCaptain19: 2. It is NOT self-defense to shoot at a car driving away. There is no case for personal threat, period.

Whenever I start to lose a fight I just run away and come better armed.

Satanic_Hamster: I'm of mixed feelings.

I can reasonably see criminal charges into the shop owner; maybe reckless use of a deadly weapon or something along those lines.

But the fact remains, Mr. Shoplifter, is that you were a criminal committing a criminal act. No money or profit for you.

Gun owner should be forced to take a gun safety class and be sentenced for the lowest possible misdemeanor and given 'x' hours of community service to helping spread the message of gun safety.

I hope the victim takes the shop owner for every penny.

Pardon me while I fail to give a sh*t.

MacEnvy: Pocket Ninja: Non-story. Shooting a non-armed shoplifter for stealing a single bottle of alcohol is exercising responsible gun ownership, nothing more.

Who said he was unarmed? This article doesn't.

FIrst, MacEnvy is completely correct. Also, from the article alone it doesn't say whether car was aimed at - or approaching - the clerk, which would constitute a threat and would be a valid shooting.

Second, they're not charging the robber with anything? WTF! Just another black career criminal. We have tons of these in Chicago...we need an exterminator for the entire south side.

"According to the lawsuit, Dewberry has been disfigured and suffered wounds that require ongoing speech therapy."

He looks fine in his mug shot. Or is that picture from one of his PREVIOUS arrests?

Snarfangel: MacEnvy: Pocket Ninja: Non-story. Shooting a non-armed shoplifter for stealing a single bottle of alcohol is exercising responsible gun ownership, nothing more.

Who said he was unarmed? This article doesn't.

We know for a fact he was armed with a bottle.

Why did the shoplifter have the expectation that he wouldn't be shot?

Here's the problem....

Shop owner shoots some guy in the face. That guy has no money. I promise you that. Even still, lots of hard-working people, like the EMT and ambulance driver and doctors and janitors and everyone who makes the hospital possible are still going to treat him. We could easily be looking 20-100k in bills. Who will pay that?

Not the piece of trash criminal.
Not the shop owner.

Taxpayers.

And that sucks.

If they put this guy in jail, who pays for that?

Taxpayers.

As a taxpayer, there only *real* crime here, is that he didn't just kill the guy. Not only would there be less criminals on the street, I wouldn't have to shoulder the financial burden of some street thug who can't pay his bills.

It wasn't as if he'd given the shop owners wife a foot massage. Cat just stole a bottle of vodak. That's no reason to fark up the way a dude talk.

DaCaptain19: 2. It is NOT self-defense to shoot at a car driving away. There is no case for personal threat, period.

There is one small caveat to that rule: if you have reason to believe that the person, although fleeing, poses a continuing threat then you can still shoot them. If they are moving to cover and are likely to start shooting once there, or they're just leaving to go kill someone else immediately, they're still justifiable targets. Obviously, this is pretty rare.

Snowflake Tubbybottom: Snarfangel: MacEnvy: Pocket Ninja: Non-story. Shooting a non-armed shoplifter for stealing a single bottle of alcohol is exercising responsible gun ownership, nothing more.

Who said he was unarmed? This article doesn't.

We know for a fact he was armed with a bottle.

Why did the shoplifter have the expectation that he wouldn't be shot?

That sounds like the setup to a joke.

I'd say the shopkeep bears 1 percent of responsibility for shooting at the guy as he was leaving, but the thief bears 99% of the responsibility as he knew or should have known that engaging in this criminal activity was reasonably likely to lead to substantial physical harm.

So, judgement of 1,000 for the plaintiff... no money for pain and suffering, you wouldn't be in pain if you weren't engaged in criminal activity.

The store owner did not follow the unwritten law: If you shoot someone outside your house or establishment, make sure that you can drag in inside before the cops come.

Mugato: I have no love for shoplifters and the gun people are going to call me every variation of the word liberal there is but he didn't deserve to get shot in the jaw over a bottle of hooch. I don't think he needs to sue though either.

I'm a gun owner, I'm not throwing the "L-word" around. Your argument is completely correct and is NOT a valid shooting by concealed-carry standards...UNLESS the vehicle was pointing directly at the clerk, which could be determined to be a threat and would validate the shooting.

The article doesn't specify that, either. It pretty much gives no detail to 100% call the shooting bad or good.

But...at the end of the day, you live by the sword you die by the sword. You chose your "profession" so don't cry about the consequences...even if they are over the top. You know..you bruise my heel so I crush your head? You slap my cheek, I f*ckin' shoot you in the groin. But you really should shoot to kill even though you never tell a cop you shot to kill, rather you shot to STOP the criminal.

Well, if they award the guy anything I hope that the shopkeeper subtracts the cost of the ammunition.

MacEnvy

Pocket Ninja: Non-story. Shooting a non-armed shoplifter for stealing a single bottle of alcohol is exercising responsible gun ownership, nothing more.

Who said he was unarmed? This article doesn't.

If we start demanding accuracy and honesty from the left they'll never talk.

Dewberry has several run-ins with police in the past. He wasn't charged in the incident.

Some fine police work there Lou. I hope his next "run-in" with police is after raping one of their daughters.


/// hey, you may be onto something.

what ---no mama in the story to say "he is innocent, never done a thing wrong, just look at his innocent face in his mug shot"

TheYeti: Well, if they award the guy anything I hope that the shopkeeper subtracts the cost of the ammunition.

How about cost of ammunition, gun cleaning, bottle of hooch, and "service rendered?"

DaCaptain19: Mugato: I have no love for shoplifters and the gun people are going to call me every variation of the word liberal there is but he didn't deserve to get shot in the jaw over a bottle of hooch. I don't think he needs to sue though either.

I'm a gun owner, I'm not throwing the "L-word" around. Your argument is completely correct and is NOT a valid shooting by concealed-carry standards...UNLESS the vehicle was pointing directly at the clerk, which could be determined to be a threat and would validate the shooting.

The article doesn't specify that, either. It pretty much gives no detail to 100% call the shooting bad or good.

But...at the end of the day, you live by the sword you die by the sword. You chose your "profession" so don't cry about the consequences...even if they are over the top. You know..you bruise my heel so I crush your head? You slap my cheek, I f*ckin' shoot you in the groin. But you really should shoot to kill even though you never tell a cop you shot to kill, rather you shot to STOP the criminal.

I think the shooting was bad, which is why it went to a grand jury at all... but it's a snap judgement by a guy who is watching someone waltz out the front door with his livelihood. I can't begin to tell you how much being robbed/burglarized/shoplifted from hurts when you're a small business owner... you give up breakfast and lunch so you can afford a bit more product when you're starting up, and clowns like this think that they should be able to just take from you without any consequence.

DaCaptain19

they're not charging the robber with anything? WTF! Just another black career criminal. We have tons of these in Chicago...we need an exterminator for the entire south side.

You want to charge a black man with a crime he admitted to committing? What are you? Racist?

Judging a man by the content of his character is evil, racist and wrong.