If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
No, that's pure bullshit, the REAL reason for ALL of it is to reduce the perceived liability of the corporation.
It's cheaper to the ConHugeCo to write off the loss of the item than even a cheap settlement is arising from some unintended consequence of stopping the perpetrator. They could care less if you die or anything like
that.
Like let's say Joe Shitbird steals a TV from the local Target. A Target staffer takes a cart and tries to intercept joe shitbird with it. The Cart stops joe shitbird, but then he falls over and lands with the TV and knocks over 78 year old mary hairnet who then cracks her hip on the floor. Now Target is getting sued by mary hairnet and that costs a lot more than Joe Shitbird stealing the TV set would have. It's all based on perception of liability.
That's all the LP ConHugeCo things care about. If it was cheaper and less financially risky, somehow, for the ConHugeCo, somehow, to have you throw a grenade at the perpetrator, they would want you to do that. They don't care about you or your safety.
-Mike
That's the most ludacris thing posted on this thread yet.If the perp WAS trying to leave, why did he turn around? Almost looks like he tried to grab the gun.
View attachment 250927
That's the most ludacris thing posted on this thread yet.
Well, that move was the last thing the perp ever did. He absolutely touched the gun. If he wanted to break the grip and he knew what he was doing, he wouldn't have , he would've gone the other way, blocked at the hand with the forearm and made a lever. Probably wouldve torn his shirt and won the grip battle. That wasn't a windmill parry into hyperextension grip break, it wasn't a leaf peel, it wasn't a step under/angle out, nor was it a hip escape. There's probably 100 different ways to break a grip, and this doesn't look like any of them to me. Instead he extended his arm into the store owner's workspace. He touched the gun because he reached for it.
How many people on NES would let a perp touch their gun when they were already drawn down on them?
Congrats on almost 2k posts BTW. Hopefully you've been around long enough to understand my love for an argument.
I'll give you a more rational support for your argument: owner thought he stole weapon if some sort to which was concealed in his front shirt, the hand roll would have been an opportunity to draw the weapon.
I'll give you a more rational support for your argument: owner thought he stole weapon if some sort to which was concealed in his front shirt, the hand roll would have been an opportunity to draw the weapon.
First , I would like to see the raw video before the news station edited the living crap out of it to make it look like what they wanted it to look like.
The guy did in fact have the hatchet in his hand when he got popped.
Had he just taken a swing at the store owner with it before the video we saw started?
Jury is still out with me.
Gun is drawn. Why confront petty shoplifter at door?
What’s going to put the shooter away is that he grabbed and held on to the shirt, pulled him back, as he was trying to exit.
It’s not defensive at that point, he becomes the aggressor by trying to pull him back.
A 5 year plea deal would be my over under.Florida law allows a merchant to detain in a "reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time". I'm not sure holding at gunpoint and using physical force is what 812.015 (3)(a) has in mind for petty theft. That law provides penalties for resisting in section (6). I think the way this was supposed to go down according to the law is that the merchant was supposed to let the guy go when he resisted and tried to flee, and when the guy was eventually caught, there would be additional penalties for that, in addition to the theft.
Secondly, if Lopez wished to strike with the ax, he did not need to release his shirt from Dunn's grasp. That would have been counterproductive. Instead, he needed to shift his weight at least a little bit from wholesale leaning out, move slightly to his left to clear the obstruction of the door (which was between Dunn and the hatchet), and rotate his body to bring his right arm into play. That would have brought Dunn in closer for the strike. That he did no such thing is proved by the video and by the way he fell after he was shot. The right hand and hatchet were positioned more or less stationary outside the door during the critical time frame, i.e. the hatchet was actually on the other side of the door, so it's awfully hard to argue that anyone could reasonably have interpreted Lopez's actions in the doorway as threatening. It isn't even as if the shot would have prevented such an attempted strike, anyway, though it might have prevented it from landing had it been attempted. And arguing about whether Lopez's hand made contact with the gun or not during that isn't going to help Dunn very much, either, because Lopez's hand was positioned exactly wrong to make a grab for the gun. Finally, Dunn did not fire until after Lopez escaped his grasp. Everything in the video is consistent with the notion that Dunn's intent was to prevent Lopez's escape by any means necessary, including deadly force.
If they offer him a good plea deal, he should take it.
At this point I think we all see what we want to see.
I also see an HK sticker in the window.