“I did what I had to do, and I hope word gets out on the street that I’m fed up and I’m not taking it anymore,” she told The Post Saturday from her store, where supportive customers lined up. “You’ve got to stick up for yourself sometimes.” …

“I did what I had to do,” she said. “After you’ve been played for a fool by people stealin’ from you for years, you get fed up. And don’t put me in the category of a little old lady. I know how to take care of myself.”

– Dana Kennedy in 88-year-old liquor store owner who shot alleged thief no ‘little old lady’

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

158 COMMENTS

  1. It’s property; it’s also her livelihood and hard work the thief was stealing.

    • “planned to steal liquor.”
      FYI if you start shooting people who are “casing” the place, you may end up going to jail, but then that is just my opinion. The guy she shot was stupid, all he had to do was say over and over the “crazy old lady shot me”.

        • I read the article, and the story is muddled to say the least. I hope there is video. If they were stealing bottles, why even go up to her. And if she whips out a gun, running is not to be unexpected. Also, according to the news story, the guy was shot inside the store.

    • No one of consequence,

      This lady’s experience reveals the extreme shortcoming of the mindset, “It is wrong to harm someone for stealing something.”

      I would agree that it is wrong to cause significant physical harm to someone for stealing a $13 bottle of rum ONE TIME. The problem is, thieves who never face any significant negative reinforcement for stealing will keep stealing and very likely escalate to stealing ever more expensive stuff. Thus, thieves start stealing a single bottle of rum every day and, before you know it, they have stolen $4,745 in merchandise in a single year. And over the course of 10 years, that is $47,450 of stolen/lost merchandise.

      That is a significant problem and burden on the business operator. For example that could literally pay for the business operator’s healthcare expenses and force the business operator to forego healthcare — thus significantly decreasing his/her quality of life and quite possibly cause the business operator’s untimely demise.

      The only acceptable situation where stealing is “okay” is in an urgent/immediate life-or-death situation where you must steal someone’s car or other item to facilitate effective self-defense and/or escape — and even then the “thief” (person under attack) is responsible for restitution for whatever he/she stole to save their life once the attack is over.

      • I don’t care if she shuts up, if I’m on the jury she will not be found guilty. At least unless she is formally charged with not shooting him twice.

  2. What she did is despicable!*

    *A statement made by someone afraid they may be put in the same situation some day but don’t want shysters dredging up old internet comments.

      • Congrats! For about a year I’ve been purposely using that name as a contradiction to the supposed claim of being smart… ..and You sir are the first one to catch it.

      • Unfortunately no State in this country allows the use of deadly force in a property crime. Unfortunately for this woman the offender or his family has already contacted an attorney and its not impossible for the bullet trap to end up owning her store.

        • As I said before on TTAG. You have not right to private property ownership in the USA. Private property rights are only for private Banks. Who use armed guards to protect the Bank’s property of paper money and gold coins. Its ok to shoot a robber over that private property. So says the Libertarians, Liberals and the Left. Who are big supporters of Rich property owners. But the not the regular person.

        • Texas does I believe, but that may be the only State and they might have changed the laws now.

        • Armored car and bank guards aren’t allowed to shoot someone who grabs a bag of cash off a cart and runs. They’re armed to shoot other armed people who are using the threat of death or serious injury to force others to give them money.

    • The victim admitted to police he’d been drinking & using cocaine & planned to steal liquor. Boyce shot him once in the back. He is recovering.

    • She also stated that it was her mother’s gun (and this lady is 88 remember), and that she had never fired a gun in her whole life. She said she was aiming for the floor.

  4. Fox News online says, she is “out on bond”, so I guess that means she’s facing some sort of criminal charges, but Fox does not say what charges. Does anyone know what this lady is being possibly charged with?
    She says she “shot at the floor to scare him”, but ended-up hitting him in the back and that she had never shot a gun before. I suppose she might have hit the floor and the bullet ricocheted off the floor and hit him.

  6. It’s gonna get much worse, and the courts are not on the side of lawful firearm owners. If the Dems win this fall, well, I don’t want to contemplate the horror of it …

    • life will be simpler with all of the law abiding in jail and the criminals joy riding in squad cruisers.

      • “life will be simpler with all of the law abiding in jail and the criminals joy riding in squad cruisers.”

        But, but…

        Maybe that poor person never got to experience the exhilarating acceleration of a ‘Police Interceptor’… 😉

        • The thing that really turned me against the (now quaint-seeming) Occupy Wall Street protestors was the photo of the guy taking a steaming dump on a Crown Vic police intercepter. Not because “police,“ but because “Crown Vic.” Love that car. All felons and miscreants should have the opportunity to ride in one…

        • I’ve driven the Crown Vic in it’s ‘police interceptor’ model and its more mundane models. Very tough, stable car. Fairly easy to fix on.

          Quick? No. Top end speed? No. Hard on gas. Find one that was never a fleet car and they are great road trip cars. Comfortable. Like driving an easy chair down the road.

      • Well,maybe not so bad if the cops are all de-funded, out with the blue-flu, or simply quitting, maybe no one will be around to arrest the law abiding!

  7. Well, she didn’t kill the P.O.S. So here’s hoping a good cririminal defense lawyer offers to take her case on pro bono.

  9. She’ll die in prison, where she belongs. Call the cops on thieves. You don’t get to execute them.

    • She didn’t execute him.

      When things happen I look at the chain of events to assess my opinion.

      The chain of events that day started with someone who wanted to commit a criminal act. What happened after that decision began the roll to his being shot. Therefore the majority of the blame is held by the one who set out to commit the criminal act.

      Should she have shot her firearm? No. She stated she meant to fire into the floor. That is never a good idea because a ricochet can hit someone or something unintended.

      Her blame is less than 1 percent in my opinion. His is more than 99 percent. Had he not consciously made a decision to steal from her he would not have been shot.

      • “She stated she meant to fire into the floor.” If so, it doesn’t matter. What matters is that:
        1. she used lethal force against someone
        2. who did not present a threat of lethal force

        For better or worse, that’s NOT legal anywhere in the US (possible exception in TX under extraordinarily narrow circumstances). That’s the law in the US whether we like it or not.

        Incidents such as this do the right to arms no good. We, the PotG – at least those of us who claim to be responsible and knowledgeable – ought NOT to encourage any such behavior. In failing to encourage compliance with the law of use of lethal force we only play into the hands of the gun controllers.

        A word to the wise should prove sufficient. To all others, the point must be repeated.

        • You are correct she should not have fired on him. You must take my opinion in its entirety to understand why I lay little blame on her in the incident. The fact he was shot was predicated by his decisions.

        • Yep, the dirtbag started the incident and he should bear the brunt of the blame if she made a poor decision under stress.

          She would walk if I was on the jury.
          Since the Left gets a pass by DA’s for rioting and arson, I get to give a pass to granny.

          I can’t wait to be put on a jury to throw a monkey wrench into the system.
          I hope and pray for a federal case where the FBI are the expert witnesses.
          I’ll deadlock that jury and be glad to say why on the media post-trial interview.

        • Well, thinking about it, she’s 88, no prior experience with firearms, meant to shoot into the floor, may have been shakier than Don Knotts (although she talks pretty straight), but maybe not. Maybe she did just what she says she intended? Is it concrete? May not change the outcome since they did have to cut lead out of his back, but maybe she’s not such a bad aim after all? Not justifying anything, just thinking…

        • @hawkeye. The surgeon will prove or disprove her statement. If the wounds were multiple and entered from below, then it was a ricochet off the floor.

          I think it’s important to wait for physical evidence; speculation can cause mob violence.

          Semper Vigilans.

      • Halfway decent prosecutor will seize on that to show that even she didn’t feel that the situation warranted the use of deadly force against the person. Same reason that warning shots are legally a very bad idea.

      • Nope. You don’t get to shoot someone and say “well, I didn’t mean to hit him.” Nor do you get to shoot people for shoplifting.

        Sorry lady, hopefully you get sent to minimum security.

    • “She’ll die in prison, where she belongs.”

      A conviction by someone who wasn’t there and gained all the evidence from a slightly more than 100 word article in a firearms blog.

      Due process all around…

      • Watched one episode of the “Last Kingdom “ the other night. The main character killed the overseer of his estate who had been stealing from the estate (farm during 698 era of Wessex, now the U.K.) for over 25 years. The character had a horse hoof the man and then ran the sword through the thief’s chest.

        As the main character’s wife looked on screaming, he yelled back to her and called out “Now that is justice”!

    • up yours you moron; Where do you live; I’ll be aaround to STEAL any thing of vaalue you own while you watch.

    • In the Progressive mindset she is a bourgeois capitalist running dog imperialist exploiter of the oppressed proletariat who deserves facing the people’s justice.

      Ever wonder why businesses end up closing? Between armed robbery, theft, and other events the risk is not just worth the reward.

    • Cgray – may we have your home address please? Since you cannot or will not defend yourself or your property – you are welcome to call the authorities once we’ve conducted our ‘home visit’.

      • Shot one of Obama’s sons back in 2008. DRT. Of course, he was coming at me with a knife saying “I’ll keel you, mudduh fugguh!!!!”. So, I got away with that one. Oh, and I’d just call the cops on you if you tried to steal my stuff. Just don’t pull knife on me.

    • Defunding the police will force citizens to take the law into their own hands by affecting citizen’s arrests of assailants. In some cases the assailant may potentially avoid police brutality since the citizen is less likely overworked and potentially suffering undiagnosed PTSD. The potential downside it that the assailant is at the mercy of the citizen.

  10. They used to hang thieves. Man, those were the days… Good on her, and shame on you if you think she should face charges.

    • Hell, the guy probably could have robbed the the place, then raped and killed the old lady, and we’d hear screed after screed of how he was just a victim of poor circumstance and a rough upbringing.
      I’m tired of this trend in society of putting its fetish for criminals above the people who actually contribute.

        • You’re a fkn moron…. this old lady it’s elderly and that’s her defense you sack o excrement….

      • It definitely started in the 70s where it was believed that treating criminals with kindness would make them see the error of their ways. Since the criminals were the true victims of harsh and cruel society, the people as members of that society had to be punished.

        The big fatal flaw was thinking criminals had a conscience and would feel remorse. In reality the light to non-existent punishments made the criminals realize they could do what they want with impunity, and the really smart ones could play the system to their own advantages.

  11. What DA in his right mind is gonna take this one to trial? They will try to get her to cop for a lesser charge, but if her lawyer has a bit of common sense he will make them take it to trial. What jury is gonna convict her?

    • I’d love to be on that jury. I’d vote for the “victim” to pay restitution for the busted wine bottles and the labor to clean up the wine and blood from the old lady’s floor.

    • “What DA in his right mind is gonna take this one to trial?”

      That depends on the color of the thief and the party of the DA.

  12. The left now wants street justice and mob rule, so I see it as her just being ahead of the curve.

  13. In AL, as in most states, shoplifting is theft, a mere property crime, and deadly force CANNOT be used to protect mere property. Pretty sure it’s the same in TN. In my state, you can only use deadly force if the thief uses or threatens force at some point during the shoplifting (theft). Read your state laws, and consult a gun-savvy lawyer who knows your state’s caselaw.
    Do this before you find yourself in this lady’s situation. “I was fed up!” Is not a legal defense.

    • In addition to “stand your ground” and “castle doctrine” laws, the RKBA community needs to push for legal safe harbor for using force (up to and including lethal force) for defending property, especially property used in the act of commerce and livelihood.

      If property owners had this safe harbor, then we taxpayers could reduce the requirement for police involvement in society – and that’s what all these “woke” lefties want, right? With a safe harbor for using lethal force against property criminals, the police might just have to come out to take some photos, draw some chalk lines on the ground, take a report and go back to the office to fill out some paperwork.

      Such laws would also put a rapid stop to looting and burning of businesses when the Democrats’ denizens of LBJ’s welfare plantation get overcome with grief and nostalgia for one of their favorite felons.

      • The woke leftists want the dregs of society to run roughshod over civilized society that will just stand by and take take, like bratty children who can break their toys and smear shit on the walls thinking that they won’t be punished for it.
        I bet my bottom dollar that all the CHAZ and anti-cop assholes don’t want true anarchy, because that means the people who are tired of their shit would probably kill them in their sleep. They only want to act the fool and not suffer the consequences.

        • Very true, and not suffering the consequences is the key. Everyone forgets the lesson of Detroit, when businesses decided it wasn’t worth it. The Left will end up creating more utopian shit hole cities where the democrat political class will have permanent power, and the result will be black people that are worse off.

          The idiots marching in Nashville the other day were carrying rainbow flags and anti-capitalism signs. This movement has nothing to do with justice or racial harmony. It’s ironic that the army of mindless followers can’t see how they’re being manipulated in order to give old, rich, mostly white, straight, cis gender (democrat) people more power.

      • I agree, Dyspeptic. As you and several others pointed out, we trade time and effort; our lives, for what we have. Therefore, in real life, a thief steals not mere property, but part of someone’s life. When he steals from a merchant, he steals their means to a livelihood. Having laws like TX (at night), or better, CO, anytime, that deadly force can be used for theft or destruction of property would stop rioters in their tracks before they ever got started. It would also simplify the complicated legal maze of how to defend the home or store in burglaries.
        In 1968, a blizzard hit Baltimore, dumping 2 feet of snow in 2 hours. Looting started downtown. The DA called in all media and announced that any merchant who shot a looter would not be prosecuted. The lootong stopped and downtown was empty in 20 minutes !

        • to Geoff “Guns. LOTS of guns…”
          Why should the police kill someone over private property? If you can’t kill someone to protect your stuff, why should the cops? So only government can kill to protect property???
          I’m not trying to be a jerk. I want people to think about the ridiculousness of the position they have taken over so called “private property rights”. You as a property owner can’t kill. But the government can kill???
          Or the government can choose to not kill. And just let your property be looted and burned to the ground.

          I’m still the only person on TTAG who has been saying since the riots started, that people who riot should be shot on sight. And for those that don’t know. A protester is not a rioter.
          But if a protester wants to change into a rioter. Then you should shoot them. And if they have a brick in their hand, it’s a good sign they are not a protester.

      • Even if that was true, it’s not, it still wouldn’t apply. She shot him BEFORE he’d actually stolen anything. Thought crimes are not crimes, psychic vibes aren’t justification.

      • You may be onto something Dyspeptic. If you sell from your home, Castle Doctrine. A business owner could endeavor to reside in their place of business. Many business owners sell from their homes, or have their homes above their shop.

        The point of law is that a robber could be assumed to be armed. A mere swat with an open hand is enough to kill an 88-yr-old female. From grandma’s point of view, EVERYONE is armed with a deadly weapon.

    • Double what DG is saying.

      We should pushing for a reform in laws that do allow deadly force to protect property.

      Before you lose your shit, look at it this way:

      Crime would absolute begin to drop at an incredible rate.

      The prison population would be much lower.

      Cops wouldn’t need to be depended on as much.

      Tax payer money would be saved.

      The legal hurdles of Self defense in general would be greatly expanded.

      I think it’s a win win for everyone here. Many of you here dislike LE, so why not reduce LE job capacity in a win win situation. Cops have less work and also you have more protection of your assets. Further, more legal protection as well.

    • This is why most stores have a policy of disarming their staff, and firing anyone who actually uses a gun, even in legitimate self defense. My pharmacy was “peacefully” robbed three times before corporate would fund hardening of the location with bars and plexiglass to keep the would be thieves out.

  14. Kinda think the optic’s are pretty poor on sentencing an 88 year old lady to jail…but getting shot in the back kinda means all bets are off. THIS is one of the miniscule # of GO FUND ME thing’s I’d send $ to!

    • +1. The optics are poor for the D.A. to prosecute an 88-yr-old woman. Imagine if Kamala Harris had one of these cases in her closet. Jesus told a parable of a widow that pestered a corrupt judge.

  15. I hope this lady gets a good attorney and he or she advises her to not make any further statements about the incident. Saying you’re “fed up” isn’t going to lend itself to your attorney establishing that you feared for your safety when you fired your weapon if this case go to trial.

    Mind you, I don’t think she’d spend a day in prison even if convicted. But then she might also get sued by the perp if she’s nailed for a bad shoot.

  16. The real lesson here is be mindful of where you open your business. Demographics matter.

  17. Seems reasonable that after you blow all your money on….blow, he’d probably need to swipe the booze to help him down from that cocaine high. It’s kinda a shame the guy already drunk and high can’t rip a bottle hootch without some old prune going heels and shooting his dumb ass.

    JK

  18. If you want to defund the police you had better expect this kind of thing to happen more often. Particularly as the democrat left arbitrarily releases criminals from their cages.

    As an article from The New York Post, this is already suspect.

  19. She seems to be a loose cannon quite honestly. Not too into that. It would be different if she was being threatened by the guy. Sounds like she could have told him to GTFO and waited 30 seconds for him to come at her.

    Lawyers love this sort of thing. As much as this guy is a tool bag he shouldn’t have been shot at that point.

    • Who knows what the truth is, but here’s how she tells it:

      “I never shot a gun before,” Boyce said, “but I guess it’s something that comes natural. I aimed at the floor to scare him.”

    • Read one of the detailed news stories linked in the comments. She says he lunged at her.

      She’d pwned the place for 26 years and had never touched a gun before. She’d been robbed before too, and never touched a gun. That’s not a loose cannon.

      A good lawyer could get her off entirely or with very light punishment. I hope one volunteers his time to help her out of this mess.

      Remember, this is that common citizen we talk about. Had this incident been a police officer doing the shooting he or she would have a department’s resources trying to protect him along with a powerful union.

      This is an elderly citizen. She killed nobody while being robbed and did not intend to anything more than scare the scumbags.

      I’ve loads more sympathy for her than for some cop who shouots an unarmed man in the back and murders him.

      • “This is an elderly citizen. She killed nobody while being robbed and did not intend to anything more than scare the scumbags”

        She killed nobody while she thought the might be robbed in the future. The event doesn’t justify lethal force, and the event didn’t actually happen.

        She’s 88, coincidence?

        She’s also not going to prison, she’ll get probation before she keels over.

  20. What would be the recidivism rate for shoplifters if they had their hand chopped off when they were caught? One more time at most?

  21. More detail:
    https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/nation-world/national/article243657927.html

    I’d say her lawyer would be in a good position to claim she feared for her life when the guy lunged at her, and it was only her elderly physical status and complete unfamiliarity with firearms that caused her shot to be both delayed and too high up.

    So this was an unintentional shooting of the victim, and an intentional shooting of the floor, which she missed.

    Plus the thief stated to officers he and his partner went there to steal.

    She does need a good lawyer. Hope one comes along to help her out of this pro-bono.

  22. I’m sure she forgot to say she thought he had a weapon.
    Since some cities have decided they won’t prosecute theft of less than $100, leaves few options for store owners.

    • Young man vs elderly woman – he doesnt have to have a gun. Its disparity of force and if she believes he means to harm her she can fire away. It just sounds like she was reluctant to cause harm to another human being. When in reality she could have emptied the gun into him and told the police she was in fear for her life and it would have been a good shoot. Still is but she may have to go thru the court system to prove it.

  23. I’ll never understand way liquor stores continue to give miscreants and addicts access to the bottles. You could just as easily give customers a book of product from behind bullet proof glass like a bank teller.

  24. I hear by sentence both of them to 30 days confinement – with each other. To be served immediately.

  25. Try this, I find her guilty, and I sentence the 88-year young lady to a life-time of both classroom and range firearm training at the tax payers expense; no jail/prison time. Additionally, I am publicly proposing (marriage).

    You go girl!

      • Happens rather frequently. Bad guy attacks, sees gun, immediately does an about face and starts running for the hills before the good gal can process this change in the situation and refrain from pulling the trigger. Still a good shoot.

    • in a saner world
      but that world doesnt exist right now
      so its good guys vs bad guys
      and shes a good guy
      the republic wont survive putting people like her in jail and letting scumbags like him walk

    • No, she did shoot him in the back. She was aiming at the floor, she said so.

      She aimed at the floor and missed.

      Possibly, his back just got in the way.

    • A young man could spin around at the sight of a gun quicker than a 88 year old woman could aim and fire so shot in back doesn’t mean not a threat or fleeing. It’s really her own story of the event that is the best evidence against her, warning shots are always a bad idea and she shot him by accident.

    • Bad shoot! She shot him in the back only once. Plus, he survived as an additional charge.

  28. she DSAF:
    Did
    Society
    A
    Favor
    she should receive a citizenship award
    not jail time
    in case no one has noticed yet:
    this is essentially civil war 2.0 going on right now
    it just hasnt been officially declared by both sides yet
    the one side wont declare it because they know when they do it means the gloves come completely off
    *of everybody*
    until then its good guys vs bad guys
    and shes a good guy
    letting her off with a slap on the wrist is in no way going to leave a lasting mark on or ruin the republic
    the bad guys have been doing way worse with the criminal justice system lately than that

  29. I say do not do the crime, if you do not want to do the time.
    We have had more than one chain store move out of reach of low income part of the city, because shoplifting was eating up ALL they profits. The honest citizens protest & ask why are you leaving, the elderly need you.
    Crime cost someone money & this is not the first time a robber has been shot for trying to steal from an small business. We need more proactvie business & if you are not a LEO or a small business person trying to make a living then you should not be so quick to judge.

  30. Well, lay that pistol down, Babe. Lay that pistol down. Pistol packin’ mama Lay that pistol down. Well, there was old Al Dexter. He always had his fun. But, with some lead she shot him dead. Now his Honkin’ days are done. Drinkin’ beer in a cabaret, And dancing with a blonde, Until one night she shot out the light, Bang! That blonde was gone. Fine work granny …

    The coke head drunk apparently had a Death Wish, but granny may have been better off if the perp had been shot dead. But having any job where you have to deal with the public, in any way, is bad news these days. The kids of today were raised on Adderall, just meth with a polite name being a combination drug containing four salts of amphetamine, and Ritalin (meth-lphenidate). That’s why there are so many problems in society right now. The USA is toast and will soon be just another bankrupt banana republic as two generations of failed experiments are rising.

    Vigilantes take the law into their own hands. The legal system fails them and police are not around or have quit, like in these times. More Vigilanteism and more Vigilantes going forward … The hunters becoming the hunted … A more concealed/civil boogaloo [on the down low] is all…

  31. If the prosecutor and judge want to be hard asses, the old lady’s goose is cooked. She will be convicted and sentenced to a prison term longer than she can reasonably expect to live. If they are willing to consider her age and the circumstances, she may get a plea deal for a misdemeanor with little or no prison time. If this goes to trial on the felony charge, her best hope will be a jury that believes in jury nullification. It would take just one juror on her side for a mistrial which would give the prosecutor an excuse to drop the whole thing.

  32. And like this incident about pistol packin’mama is REALLY big news? It’s like nothing to see here compared to the killing fields in Chicago.

    At least 100 people were shot, 14 fatally, Chicago over Father’s Day Weekend 2020. At least 56 people had been shot in Chicago by Sunday morning of Father’s Day Weekend. Nine of those shooting victims died.

    A car pulled up on three men and the occupants opened fire. Two 34-year-old men and a 43-year-old man were shot, and the wounds of one of the 34-year-old men proved fatal. Another fatal shooting occurred when occupants of a car opened fire on a 15-year-old and a 16-year-old as they walked in an alley. Tough luck and too bad kid-wrong place wrong time… This just a sample as seven others were also shot down like dogs and killed.

    More than 30 were shot, two fatally, in Chicago last weekend and 35 were shot, five fatally, the weekend prior. Also 85 shot, 24 fatally, in Chicago during the last weekend of May 2020.

    • F??K Chicago, Illinois and all the other places that are running the same way. If the residents do not care enough to do more about the killings, why should others waste time and resources reading and discussing that regions problem.

  33. The saddest things about this story is that the thief is recovering and the little old lady was arrested. Kinda backwards, dontcha think?

    And to think that this used to be a decent country.

    • When was it legal to shoot shoplifters in the back? During segregation? Yeah, great country.

  34. Since the shoplifter must have been white and didn’t die, there is a good chance that the prosecutors will offer her a pretty good plea deal with probation and ‘time served’ rather than take the chance of jury nullification. But you never know.

  35. What alternatives do Libertarians offer to private property owners??? Call the government for help?
    Yes, Now I am being a jerk.
    (smile)

    • Protection of private property would presumably be the sort of law even most libertarians would support. Failing that, I suspect they would support the legal ability for owners to protect the property themselves through whatever means necessary.

      • How did we get to the point in our society, when the rich who can afford armed guards can protect their stuff, and the ordinary person who has a gun can’t do the same???

        And how is it that Libertarians are comfortable with the government killing to protect government property??? But you can’t kill to protect your stuff if it come to that. They talk about “non aggression”? I think Libertarians are clueless. And they are utopians. In 2020, I don’t think most voters are concerned with drugs and sex acts. It seems guns and the inability to get one is a really big concern for many voters now.
        How does “non aggression” fit into that current concern?

        ps
        I do think the Libertarian message about Liberty is a very good one. But you get Liberty by killing for it. And then kill to keep it if necessary. That is the basic human struggle. People who live in riot torn cities and have no police, have lost their Liberty.

        We say “you are on your own”, in the gun community. The arrest of this 88 year old woman proves that is not true.

  36. This should be an interesting case. Generally, you cannot use deadly force to protect property unless you are in fear of your life or serious injury. Castle Doctrine does not apply when you are in your business unless you are in danger. But what prosecutor would charge a little old lady?

    • I’ll be watching it for a couple of reasons but primarily I’m considering TN as a retirement location in a few years and want to know whether they are for or against the law abiding residents.

      I need to move to a freer state and, hopefully, one that will stay that way for a good while. Beretta left “The Free State” to go there so I’m thinking it’s good enough for me. I’m really tired of having to remain anonymous.

    • Not a complicated case. She’s already been charged. It’s open and shut. The only question is what deal her lawyer gets for her or if she’s dumb enough to reject it.

  37. You can’t just shoot shoplifters in the back.

    There’s a lot that disparity of force can account for- if that guy attacked an 88 year old lady I don’t think anyone would question her using a gun. But being weak doesn’t give you a free pass to murder any more than it gives a free pass to steal. We’re not in the thunderdome nor was she in the Seattle free zone or whatever it’s called. Call the police or figure out a way to deal with theft within the law (hired security for example) or figure out how to deal with overhead. Or sell your business to someone who can.

    Failing that, enjoy spending the rest of your life in the judicial system.

    • “You can’t just shoot shoplifters in the back.”

      Hmm, why not? Seriously, there’s no real difference between a shoplifter and a looter except scale. I, for one, am pretty tired of molly coddling scum bags. Allowing business owners to protect their livelihood is just common sense, particularly small businesses. So, yes, shoot them front, back, or where ever. Just shoot them and watch the crime rates fall.

      Shoplifters cost consumers in the billions each year to make up for lost profits. It’s past time to put a stop to it.

  38. This reminds me of an old video game, released twenty years ago (wow I’m feeling old) called Police Quest 4. In it, the protagonist detective can buy an apple from a Korean grocery store. If you try to leave without paying, the Korean lady threatens you. If try to walk out again, she blows your head off.

    I’m not sure if this was a cheeky joke or an attempt at realism given the game’s setting (LA, after the riots).

    • The Non-Aggression Principle was violated by the thief, and is being violated by the people threatening her by cooperating with the police. It ain’t rocket surgery, genius.

      You never case to amaze me with the lengths you’ve gone to simply in order to intentionally misunderstand and knowingly misrepresent each and every little facet of libertarianism you bother to elaborate on with almost each and every comment you make. Oh, and don’t even bother trying to lie to me by saying that you don’t, either, because you, me, and the fence post all damn-well know that I’m right about you, too. So, the sooner you stop lying, and we all know (including you whether you admit it or not) that you are so don’t bother denying it, the sooner you’ll actually start to make sense.

      • “The Non-Aggression Principle”

        Sorry Ex but I just can’t stop laughing every time someone uses that. Utopia here we come! Woohoo sign me up and then no one will ever be aggressive! Wow, I just can’t wait!

        So now you say if I report aggression it is aggressive. If that’s true there can be no punishment for the initial aggression. Now, the big question: What’s to stop someone from the committing initial aggression (up to and including mass murder)? Kumbaya? All men get castrated? Seriously, I want to know how this is supposed work.

      • Sorry, misread you about who the aggressor was Ex but still want to know how this is supposed to work. Who decides what is aggressive in a libertarian society and how are they punished? How do police work without being aggressive? Wouldn’t that be a violation? Who decides? In the end is there really any change to what’s going on now other than legalization of drugs?

  40. It would be creative for her to install a two door entry vestibule…doors maybe 6ft apart…Lexan windows. Enter through both doors unassisted. Exit inner door unassisted, but then both doors lock requiring employee activation of exterior door to complete exit. It’s like a Defective Citizen trap. Cost to construct would have been cheap compared to her legal costs she may be facing.

    • Why is the onus always shifted to the victim? I guess it’s all her fault after all for not shelling out thousands of $$ to make it harder for scum bags to be scum bags. Yes indeed, she should anticipate every possible scenario and shell out however many thousands it takes to prevent them.

  42. This may have been a looting. Also depending on what type of liquor was stolen the assailant may have been intending to use the liquor to cause an act of Arson.

  44. Obviously I wasn’t there and am pretty sure the media doesn’t have the complete story. If she did shoot him in the back, that won’t look good at trial.

Comments are closed.