Comment by _zzaw | Hacker News Reader

Comment by _zzaw | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I’m not seeing how a pistol would help here. In most circumstances that I can think of, drawing a weapon against a shoplifter—to say nothing of using it—is more likely to result in charges against you than the thief. Unless you can prove you were in imminent danger—you tried to stop a thief and they produced a weapon, say—I think a lot of juries are not going to look kindly on your decision to brandish a weapon in a crowded store or street. The risk of harm to bystanders is too high. (And a gun isn’t going to be any use against a thief who’s already gone, or apathetic cops who don’t give a damn.)

I don’t have any problem at all with people resorting to lethal force as a means of self defense, and if this was violent crime we were talking about, I’d probably see it differently. As far as shoplifting, I do believe that a community of armed, on-edge people looking for criminals is likely to be more of a threat to public safety than the criminals themselves. I think more effective surveillance and forceful prosecution—as well as whatever social measures can proactively reduce crime—is a better approach here.

It seems to be a commonly repeated american fantasy to be a cowboy stopping the big bad guys with their big good guns even when there's no actual threat to anyone's life

I think the general idea is that the thief would have to escalate to physical violence in order to steal the prize. The physical violence escalation would then justify pulling out the pistol and shooting. Roughly the thief would have to escalate to mugging.

Yeah, that just seems crazy. The OP said he wanted to feel like he had the option to escalate, but as far as I’ve seen, it’s typically the act of escalating a situation that harms a self-defense argument.

I mean, maybe you could block a thief’s exit while producing a handgun, and create a standoff until the cops arrived. That still sounds pretty reckless for something like shoplifting; getting into an altercation that results in firing a gun in a store is a risk to everyone in the vicinity. I remember when some woman shot out the tires of somebody trying to steal a ton of stuff from Home Depot—she was arrested. Both the cops and other gun owners thought that was incredibly irresponsible.

I think what you're saying is that the person getting stolen from has a duty to surrender their property to avoid escalating. That sounds absurd to me? The person doing the stealing is the one escalating as the natural state is the original owner keeping possession of their property. "Give me your wallet." "No." -- What happens next and who is the one escalating?

I doubt a thief would stick around for the cops to arrive. And I do think everyone knows you don't pull a gun until you're ready to fire it to neutralize a threat. (A truck is probably not a theat unless it's trying to run you over.)

That’s a mugging you’re describing. There’s an implicit threat of violence in being confronted by someone who demands your property, and drawing a weapon would likely be seen as justified.

Retail theft—someone grabbing stuff and fleeing the store—is a different deal. If you blocked the person from leaving and they threatened you, again, you might be able to justify drawing a weapon. But threatening deadly force against someone who’s running away isn’t the same situation.

As you said, you don’t draw a gun unless you’re willing to use it. If I were a store customer or employee, I’d be more worried about armed hero-types overreacting and possibly killing me, rather than someone stealing stuff and trying to escape.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com