Is it right or wrong to shoot a fleeing thief?

http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2014/10/old_man_shoots_robber_north_dallas.php

^^^ makes me wonder what people think. Here's the situation: You're coming out of the grocery store with your wife. Someone grabs your wife's necklace, yanks it off, pushes her to the ground, and runs away with the necklace. You have a gun and are reasonably confident you can make the shot if you act immediately. What do you do?

IRL, this is TX so it sounds like the cops and DA are at least willing to take everyone's word for it that they were in danger and no charges will be filed.

I am ok with a thief getting shot.

A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

 

 

 

yeah man it's fine in my state at least

here's my follow up question. Should we execute convicted thieves? what really changes the morality of the situation after the fact instead of during the crime?

I dont think someone should lose their live over property. The situation you received is murder. Phone Post 3.0

Test For Echo - 


A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.



 



 



 



yeah man it's fine in my state at least


It's also legal to promise to take an orphan to the zoo, then blow him off, even though that would be indisputably wrong. I didn't ask whether it was legal, I asked whether it was right or wrong.

I don't think it's right to kill someone over a necklace, if it's legal or not I have no idea. Phone Post 3.0

Yes its ok.

And people who do shoot fleeing criminals should be recognized for service to the community rather than face charges.

ceiling_cat - here's my follow up question. Should we execute convicted thieves? what really changes the morality of the situation after the fact instead of during the crime?
Loaded questions for days. Phone Post 3.0

ceiling_cat - 
Test For Echo - 


A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.



 



 



 



yeah man it's fine in my state at least


It's also legal to promise to take an orphan to the zoo, then blow him off, even though that would be indisputably wrong. I didn't ask whether it was legal, I asked whether it was right or wrong.


I think it is fine. Go ahead.

WhoShotYushinOkami - 


Yes its ok.



And people who do shoot fleeing criminals should be recognized for service to the community rather than face charges.


please see follow up question.

We really do need to legislate lying to orphans. I applaud ceiling_cat for bringing light to this epidemic.

I don't think a thief should be put to death by the goverment, but I could not careless if they get killed while committing the crime.

In the situation you described, I'd say it's wrong to shoot the fleeing thief

I think deadly force should be restricted to situations in which you're in danger of losing your life. Shooting some punk kid in the back after he ripped off your wife's necklace and is running away...there's no fear for your life at that point.

If the situation was different, e.g. the thief broke into their house late at night while they were home, my answer would be different

Nothing wrong with shooting someone who assaults a loved one. Don't start shit won't be no shit. Phone Post 3.0

Blueyevil - 


I don't think a thief should be put to death by the goverment, but I could not careless if they get killed while committing the crime.


why the distinction? I'm genuinely curious.

SomeonesInMyFruitCellar - I dont think someone should lose their live over property. The situation you received is murder. Phone Post 3.0

Its not necessarily about property.

Shot and killed?...maybe a little far. Shot and wounded?...I'll allow it. Phone Post 3.0

My father is a lawyer and once represented a guy who robbed a store. He was suing the store owner who shot him in the back as he ran away. The bullet went right through him without hitting any organs and he won money from the store owner.

cawk8===D~ - I don't think it's right to kill someone over a necklace, if it's legal or not I have no idea. Phone Post 3.0


Well its incorrect to break it down by the possessions the theif is taking.



You see its the act of robbing someone that got him killed, not the necklace.



Lets change the circumstances if we are breaking it down by possession....



 



Instead of a necklace, lets say a purse.



And lets say that purse contains a severe diabetics medication.



Or maybe its an HIV positive person and all her medicine.