Perhaps a case to test carrying in a properly posted business?

[wtl]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/09/man-defends-store-from-robbery-with-his-gun-and-now-could-lose-his-lease/

 

Gist: Memphis store owner pulled his gun inside properly posted Mall, chased thieves into parking lot, fired three warning shots.

 

No info on whether any charges could be involved.

Edited August 10, 2013 by wtl

[Chucktshoes]

That's a boatload of fail getting ready to set sail. Anytime I see the words "warning shot" in print I cringe cause I know that this wont end well.

[R_Bert]

If he shot at a fleeing perp (and where the threat is over), then then any gun permit involved should be revoked..

[scoutfsu]

Warning shots should equal a punch in the face.

 

He should have drilled them where they stood.

 

Talk about a bunch of fail on the Mall Owners....[quote]Since the 2010 shooting death of a security guard, the mall has worked hard to repair its image a “family friendly” shopping destination. Not even the security guards carry guns.[\quote]  Awesome.  You hear that criminals and thugs?!?!  We're defenseless!!  Southland Mall should focus its efforts on actually improving security if it wants to make it's patrons actually safer.  No, they'd rather subscribe to the liberal ideal of burying their heads in the sand by banning OMG! GUNZ!!, rather than criminals. 

[TMF]

If he gets charged for carrying at a posted business it will not have any bearing on someone who carries past a posting. In this case there are aggravating circumstances, just like other folks who have been charged so far. I've yet to see a story where someone simply carried past a posting and was charged. There's always more to the story and other laws broken.

[DaveTN]

If he gets charged for carrying at a posted business it will not have any bearing on someone who carries past a posting. In this case there are aggravating circumstances, just like other folks who have been charged so far. I've yet to see a story where someone simply carried past a posting and was charged. There's always more to the story and other laws broken.

He can’t be charged with carrying at a posted business, he owns the business. What the Mall owners can do depends on what the contract says.

He could be charged for shooting at the fleeing suspects, but it doesn't sound like that is happening. What he did was reckless.

[wjh2657]

Tennessee Law does not allow the use of a firearm to protect property. If the perps were fleeing they were no longer a threat to his life. Everything he did here was wrong by law. Book him for aggravated assault, reckless endangerment and revoke his lease would sound appropriate here.

[TMF]

He can’t be charged with carrying at a posted business, he owns the business. What the Mall owners can do depends on what the contract says.

He could be charged for shooting at the fleeing suspects, but it doesn't sound like that is happening. What he did was reckless.

 

The mall was posted though.  He had a pistol in the mall and in the parking lot.  His business is only the small area he leases within the mall, which means he would have to break the law in order to get to his business or to leave it with a firearm, not to mention the undeniable proof that he had possession of the firearm whilst chasing the punks and shooting at them.... all on posted property.

[scoutfsu]

Tennessee Law does not allow the use of a firearm to protect property. If the perps were fleeing they were no longer a threat to his life. Everything he did here was wrong by law. Book him for aggravated assault, reckless endangerment and revoke his lease would sound appropriate here.

 

I'd much rather focus on catching the robbers and charging them...

 

This guy just needs some very...motivated...instruction and counseling.

[JayC]

As Dave pointed out, 39-17-1359 doesn't apply in this case since he is carrying under 39-17-1308...  not 39-17-1351

 

He can’t be charged with carrying at a posted business, he owns the business. What the Mall owners can do depends on what the contract says.

He could be charged for shooting at the fleeing suspects, but it doesn't sound like that is happening. What he did was reckless.

 

[JayC]

We don't have all the facts, he may very well make it a credible self defense shooting, he may very well had a reasonable fear at points in time...  clearly they didn't arrest him on the scene, so chances are there won't be any charges. 

 

The mall was posted though.  He had a pistol in the mall and in the parking lot.  His business is only the small area he leases within the mall, which means he would have to break the law in order to get to his business or to leave it with a firearm, not to mention the undeniable proof that he had possession of the firearm whilst chasing the punks and shooting at them.... all on posted property.

[TMF]

We don't have all the facts, he may very well make it a credible self defense shooting, he may very well had a reasonable fear at points in time...  clearly they didn't arrest him on the scene, so chances are there won't be any charges. 

 

You're right, I was just going off of the description from the story that they were running away.  For all we know one of them had a firearm and pointed it at him while they were fleeing.  Personally, I don't care.  The only part of this story that pisses me off is the fact that these theives lived.

[Volzfan]

He can’t be charged with carrying at a posted business, he owns the business. What the Mall owners can do depends on what the contract says.

He could be charged for shooting at the fleeing suspects, but it doesn't sound like that is happening. What he did was reckless.

But he doesn't own the mall. Only his leased business in their space which sounds like was properly posted along with written into the lease.

Edited August 10, 2013 by Volzfan

[RobertNashville]

It wasn't all that long ago in another thread (maybe a couple of months at most) that a robber was shot at while he was fleeing from the scene through the parking lot of the store he had robbed (or tried to rob)...I was roundly, even vehemently criticized for maintaining that the citizen who fired at the fleeing thug was reckless and endangering innocent bystanders and more importantly, no longer had the legal right to employ deadly force.

 

Yet, in this thread, the consensus seems to be that this citizen was reckless in firing at the fleeing thug.  

 

Maybe there is some pertinent fact in this case that wasn't there in the other but I don't think so. :shrug:

[Guest nra37922]

When the threat was no longer there, ie the asswipe turned and ran, the owner needed to stop.  CCW holders have no business firing 'warning' shots as what goes up does come down somewhere and thank God nobody was injured.  Incidents like this make us all look bad and I have NO sympathy for whatever happens to this guy.  Same level of jagoff asshole as Voldemort in my eyes.

[DaveTN]

It wasn't all that long ago in another thread (maybe a couple of months at most) that a robber was shot at while he was fleeing from the scene through the parking lot of the store he had robbed (or tried to rob)...I was roundly, even vehemently criticized for maintaining that the citizen who fired at the fleeing thug was reckless and endangering innocent bystanders and more importantly, no longer had the legal right to employ deadly force.

 

Yet, in this thread, the consensus seems to be that this citizen was reckless in firing at the fleeing thug.  

 

Maybe there is some pertinent fact in this case that wasn't there in the other but I don't think so. :shrug:

In the thread you are talking about the bad guy had threatened the clerk with a gun. While being chased the bad guy turned and pointed the gun at the clerk, the clerk shot him dead. How is that remotely close to this?

[Raoul]

It wasn't all that long ago in another thread (maybe a couple of months at most) that a robber was shot at while he was fleeing from the scene through the parking lot of the store he had robbed (or tried to rob)...I was roundly, even vehemently criticized for maintaining that the citizen who fired at the fleeing thug was reckless and endangering innocent bystanders and more importantly, no longer had the legal right to employ deadly force.

 

Yet, in this thread, the consensus seems to be that this citizen was reckless in firing at the fleeing thug.  

 

Maybe there is some pertinent fact in this case that wasn't there in the other but I don't think so. :shrug:

 

Sucks to be a prophet...lol

[Spots]

Tennessee Law does not allow the use of a firearm to protect property. If the perps were fleeing they were no longer a threat to his life. Everything he did here was wrong by law. Book him for aggravated assault, reckless endangerment and revoke his lease would sound appropriate here.

Yeah sadly he didn't shoot the SOB dead. Book him for reckless endangerment for firing a warning shot, and suggest a good range so that next time its not a warning shot. Thieves deserve nothing but the end of a rope or a bullet. The law can say property can't be protected, and lots of people here think no material object is worth a humans life. Well, once you made the decision to steal, your life just became worth a hell of a lot less than my stuff, consdering how hard I bust my ass to barely make it. Maybe next time it'll be a dead thief and a happy ending.

Tapatalk ate my spelling.

[RobertNashville]

Some memories seem to be a bit selective.

 

In a four page thread I was referring to, all we knew for most of the pages (at least the first three) was that a store manager, after the robbery was over and the thug had left the store and was running away, followed said thug into the parking lot and "shot him in the back" (per the headline). In the original news story on which the thread was based, there was no info presented that the thug may have fired his weapon at all, first or otherwise yet that didn't stop the bashing of me for suggesting that the manager following the thug after he had disengaged and was running away was being stupid and reckless and needlessly endangering anyone who was in the parking lot when the gunfire started.

 

The case in this thread is at least similar and maybe very similar - a store owner chases fleeing thug into parking lot and store owner discharges his weapon (apparently no fire from the thug); one difference in this case is that the thug is still alive and apparently the shots fired by the store owner were warning shots (or perhaps just poor marksmanship???).

 

In any case, in the prior thread and in this one, Tennessee law only allows the use of deadly force when the victim has a reasonable fear for his life and/or of grave bodily injury; a fleeing thug, even an armed one, no longer presents a reasonable threat of death/injury once he is running away. At that point, the threat is over and so is any justification for using deadly force.

 

Following a fleeing thug into a parking lot is stupid and reckless (the warning shots only compounding the stupidity and recklessness).

[RobertNashville]

Yeah sadly he didn't shoot the SOB dead. Book him for reckless endangerment for firing a warning shot, and suggest a good range so that next time its not a warning shot. Thieves deserve nothing but the end of a rope or a bullet. The law can say property can't be protected, and lots of people here think no material object is worth a humans life. Well, once you made the decision to steal, your life just became worth a hell of a lot less than my stuff, consdering how hard I bust my ass to barely make it. Maybe next time it'll be a dead thief and a happy ending.

Tapatalk ate my spelling.

Oh you can shoot the SOB/thief all day long and twice on Sunday (so long as you are prepared to defend yourself from a murder charge).  ;)

[Oh Shoot]

As Dave pointed out, 39-17-1359 doesn't apply in this case since he is carrying under 39-17-1308...  not 39-17-1351

 

Doesn't matter. 1359 doesn't say it only applies to permit holders.

 

All in all though, I think a 1359 violation is far down the list on this guy's possible problems.

 

- OS

[Guest nra37922]

Some memories seem to be a bit selective.

 

In a four page thread I was referring to, all we knew for most of the pages (at least the first three) was that a store manager, after the robbery was over and the thug had left the store and was running away, followed said thug into the parking lot and "shot him in the back" (per the headline). In the original news story on which the thread was based, there was no info presented that the thug may have fired his weapon at all, first or otherwise yet that didn't stop the bashing of me for suggesting that the manager following the thug after he had disengaged and was running away was being stupid and reckless and needlessly endangering anyone who was in the parking lot when the gunfire started.

 

The case in this thread is at least similar and maybe very similar - a store owner chases fleeing thug into parking lot and store owner discharges his weapon (apparently no fire from the thug); one difference in this case is that the thug is still alive and apparently the shots fired by the store owner were warning shots (or perhaps just poor marksmanship???).

 

In any case, in the prior thread and in this one, Tennessee law only allows the use of deadly force when the victim has a reasonable fear for his life and/or of grave bodily injury; a fleeing thug, even an armed one, no longer presents a reasonable threat of death/injury once he is running away. At that point, the threat is over and so is any justification for using deadly force.

 

Following a fleeing thug into a parking lot is stupid and reckless (the warning shots only compounding the stupidity and recklessness).

Years ago, 10+, if memory serves me right a Korean shop owner in northern Davidson County emptied his Glock in a parking lot shooting at a fleeing thief.  I believe among the damage he caused was shot out store windows and a shot up Jeep.  Unfortunately, LEO responding to the scene ended up shooting and killing him.  Now I may be completely wrong as this was over a decade ago.

[DaveTN]

Years ago, 10+, if memory serves me right a Korean shop owner in northern Davidson County emptied his Glock in a parking lot shooting at a fleeing thief.  I believe among the damage he caused was shot out store windows and a shot up Jeep.  Unfortunately, LEO responding to the scene ended up shooting and killing him.  Now I may be completely wrong as this was over a decade ago.

He had been engaged in a gun battle inside the store with two armed robbers that continued into the parking lot. They ran outside and carjacked a couple. He shot at them as they were fleeing in the vehicle. Unfortunately for him he didn’t hear (probably an adrenaline rush and tunnel vision) the two Police Officers yelling at him to stop; they shot and killed him.

[TMF]

Some memories seem to be a bit selective.

In a four page thread I was referring to, all we knew for most of the pages (at least the first three) was that a store manager, after the robbery was over and the thug had left the store and was running away, followed said thug into the parking lot and "shot him in the back" (per the headline). In the original news story on which the thread was based, there was no info presented that the thug may have fired his weapon at all, first or otherwise yet that didn't stop the bashing of me for suggesting that the manager following the thug after he had disengaged and was running away was being stupid and reckless and needlessly endangering anyone who was in the parking lot when the gunfire started.

Yeah, perhaps a lot of things are selective. I guess if this armed thug hadn't committed a crime, but instead was wearing a hoodie and looking suspicious the actions of the manager following him would have been okay in your book.

[JayC]

Go re-read 39-17-1359a2:

 

The prohibition in subdivision (a)(1) shall apply to any person who is authorized to carry a firearm by authority of § 39-17-1351.

 

39-17-1359 only impacts carry under 39-17-1351, not other defense under 39-17-1308.  Same reason law enforcement officers can carry past signs...  they only apply to permit holders.

 

Doesn't matter. 1359 doesn't say it only applies to permit holders.

 

All in all though, I think a 1359 violation is far down the list on this guy's possible problems.

 

- OS

Edited August 11, 2013 by JayC