Family Of Burglar Shot in the Act: He Was Human, Too

Amund Benjamin Haarstad Shot Burglary Family

courtesy kcci.com

We wrote about a recent burglary in Des Moines in which a store owner arrived at his business, only to find Amund Benjamin Haarstad in the process of relieving him of some of his inventory. The store owner shot and killed Haarstad.

Now, as happens so often these situations . . .

Family members of a man slain in an apparent burglary attempt said he never should have been shot and killed, admitting wrongdoing by both parties involved. The fatal shooting happened just after 7:15 a.m. Wednesday at Kraft Imports and 5 Star Muffler in the 1400 block of Army Post Road on Des Moines’ south side.

According to Haarstad’s sister, her brother “doesn’t have a history of violence.” Except, of course, that isn’t really true. Harstaad was a junkie who had served time for attacking a man with a screwdriver.

The store owner isn’t completely in the clear yet.

It’s unclear exactly what led up to the shooting. Des Moines police said there are still a lot of things to figure out, and they’re not calling it a “stand your ground” case just yet. A decision on any charges will come from the Polk County Attorney’s Office.

In the mean time, Haarstad’s family think the store owner should have…well…it’s not really clear how they think he should have handled the situation.

“It’s just hard,” his sister said. “I just want people to know that he was human, too.”

That’s certainly true. It’s also true that her all-too-human brother chose to break into another human’s business and, in all likelihood, threaten him when he was caught.

(Des Moines police Sgt. Paul) Parizek shared a message for anyone considering a life of crime.

“You never know when you’re going to pick the wrong business and you’re going to encounter the wrong business (owner) that’s got their heels dug in,” he said. “They’re going to protect their property and themselves, and this is the type of thing that may happen,” he said.

Words to live by.

comments

  1. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    Didn’t they have some magistrate in Ireland state that we need to consider the rights of the violent offenders?

    1. avatar Red in CO says:

      Well, given that the entire point of rights is that they are universal….

      1. avatar drunkEODguy says:

        Except for when you violate someone’s natural rights to life, liberty, and/or property, you nullify your own rights. In the context of the modern society we live in this still the case. The only difference being that once the threat or action of harm or theft has passed it then becomes the job of the state (police) to find and hold this offender responsible.

        The concept that most nation states function on is one where the state has the only legitimate use of force barring extreme circumstances such as immanent threat to life, liberty, or property. Of course, this means different things in different places. In Texas you can shoot a trespasser, whereas in other places you can shoot someone only who is a threat to life/limb, and other places still you have a duty to retreat (be victimized).

        This concept is not new, this is 17th century writing, but probably ancient thinking.

        TL;DR- violent offenders can stuff a pineapple in their sphincter sideways. You go violating other peoples inherit rights, you forfeit your own. If you survive violating others rights, then due process needs to occur to strip you of your rights for a time or permanently. It is too damn easy to not harm other peoples person or things.

        rant over.

        1. avatar Friar Tuck says:

          You guys keep trying to play a semantics game buy conveniently equating propriety with life. I know you would like to able to kill another human being simply for stealing from you, but you can’t, it really is that simple. In 90% of places under 90% of circumstances you will be the one in prison. You do not have a natural of legal right to defend propriety with lethal force, do so at your own peril.

        2. avatar EWTHeckman says:

          Do you get paid for working? Do you spend time working to acquire something?

          Then when someone steals something from you, they are stealing the portion of your life related to that property. (The initial work, and the work necessary to replace it and recover from the theft.)

          And for a business owner, their business represents a huge portion of their life. If a theft destroys a business, then that theft has stolen a huge part of the business owner’s life. That can be on par with a disabling injury caused by an assault.

          It isn’t stealing their entire life, like murder is, but it is still consequential.

        3. avatar Friar Tuck says:

          Nice pontificating on abstraction and philosophy, doesn’t mean a thing. In every modern civilized society if you kill over propriety, your cooked, no if ands or buts. There are very long held valid practical and philosophical reasons fore this, that civilized men have recognized. Move to the Philippines if you wanna play Charlie Bronson.

        4. avatar Jay says:

          Hey Friar Fuck your thinking is what emboldens thieves.

        5. avatar New Continental Army says:

          Triar Fuck, actually you can. Breaking into someone’s dwelling while they are home is considered a forcible felony in many jurisdictions, and therefore you are able to respond with lethal force. If someone is breaking into your home you have every right to assume they are there to kill you, and you don’t have to ask them why they are breaking in. This is dependent on the state you are in.

        6. avatar Eric Simpson says:

          “and in other places you have a duty to retreat (be victimized)”

          Also, as you retreat there is a greater chance that the aggressor will harm or kill you, as with his own gun. So it’s pretty crazy that you have to retreat.

        7. avatar Sal Chichon says:

          You are right on this, and anybody who disagrees with you is an idiot. A thief isn’t just stealing, “things.” What the thief is really stealing is a part of the victim’s limited time on this crap planet he/she used to procure the object of theft.

        8. avatar Mac says:

          Friar Tuck, before you continue your BS pitch, please learn the difference between “property” and “propriety”.
          This leads to the assumption that you are either a foreign visitor to the website here and/or a foreigner to the US.

          Now, do us all a favor and research and learn the State by State laws regarding “Stand your ground”, “Castle Doctrine” and the infamous “Retreat” laws.
          The retreat laws are only enacted in a few states, which oddly enough have some of the highest crime and violence.

          Castle doctrine and stand your ground laws are by far the most common and equate to not only natural law but fall within the boundaries of Federal law as well.

          If you break into someone’s home/business, you are a doomed person, plain and simple.

        9. avatar Matt says:

          Why the heck do people keep saying that. No, you CANNOT shoot a trespasser in Texas or any other state. Texas has just about the most liberal use of force policies in the US (by that I mean relaxed, not commie). During daylight hours you can only shoot a trespasser to stop a crime of violence, arson, burglary or robbery. At NIGHT TIME you can shoot a trespasser also to stop “criminal mischief”. I haven’t looked in to Texas state code, but I am guessing that is probably clearly defined.

          Also ONLY if the person believes that deadly force is the only way to end one of those crimes while that person is trespassing. Someone simply trespassing on your property can’t be stopped with deadly force, even if they tell you to F-off and that they aren’t leaving. As a Texas property owner, you CAN use force to chase them off in that case it appears, but deadly force would still be murder/assault with a deadly weapon.

          IE you’ve got someone trespassing, you could chase them off with a baseball bat or scare them with a shotgun. You shoot them however and you’ll be answering a lot of pointed questions and better have some reasonable proof that they were actually engaged in B&E or similar.

          PS Robbery is NOT theft under Texas law. So if they guy is making of with your lawn mower that is parked in your driveway, you could not use lethal force to stop the theft. If they are breaking in to your garage, shed or barn to steal your mower you could.

          PPS there are ZERO states in the US that allow lethal force to terminate simple trespass. Which is why you generally see guys hauled up on charges for shooting the teens who were on their front lawn and the old white homeowner got scared.

        10. avatar Matt says:

          Also in response to those mentioning castle doctrine laws/common law most states do not have a castle doctrine law. What it is, is a legal precedent and tradition from English Common law that stated that a mans domicile is their castle and could defend it as if it were a castle. Under US law, unless there is a SPECIFIC statute that modifies, nullifies or expands upon English Common Law than English Common Law is considered in affect. This is the case 50 state wide. So states that don’t have stand your ground laws or don’t have Duty to piss yourself, I mean retreat, laws the Castle Doctrine is considered valid defense against a charge of homicide or manslaughter if you kill someone who has broken in to your house when you are present.

          Note if you suspect someone is in your home and you are NOT in your home and you go in and kill them, odds are very, very high that the DA is going to charge you with murder in those states and the jury will convict you.

          The Castle Doctrine isn’t about protecting your house (and it wasn’t under English Common Law either). It was about an extension of English Common Law that all persons have a natural right to defend themselves. Sadly the English have done away with such a natural right.

          So basically the Castle Doctrine isn’t about protecting your property, it is about you or your loved ones being in that property and if someone is willing to break in, then they very well might be up for some violence or murder and how the hell are you going to know?

          Few states allow you to protect property with lethal force. As I mentioned above, Texas IS one of the states that allow it. I could go off and redo my survey of state laws as I did awhile back discussing this topic with someone else, but there are only something like 10-15 states in the US that allow you to use lethal force to stop some kind of property crime. Something like 45 states either have Castle Doctrine laws or precedent or Stand Your Ground laws (leaving the remaining ones having actual duty to retreat laws).

          Even most states that have duty to retreat laws still allow the use of lethal force to stop an imminent lethal threat. They just don’t consider a B&E while you are home as an imminent lethal threat. But they almost always allow you to meet force with force. So if someone punches you, you ain’t going to prison for punching them back. Someone pulls a knife on you, you can shoot them down (they are attempting lethal force). It is a duty to retreat if it is practical without endangering your life. So you witness a shooting at a McDonalds if you pull your gun out and go running in there, you are up on murder charges in those states. You could retreat without risking your life to do it.

          PS Most states do cover the use of lethal force to stop an arson as being A Ok. Campers beware “I swear officer, I thought he was trying to burn the entire forest down” ;-D

        11. avatar Big Bill says:

          “In every modern civilized society if you kill over propriety, your cooked, no if ands or buts.”

          If, in fact, that’s what happens, you’re right. However (and there’s always a “however”)…
          If someone attempts to steal my car and I catch them in the act, I have the natural (and legal) right to attempt to stop them. If that attempt results on an assault on my person, then I have the natural (and legal) right to defend myself.
          There will always be people who will misinterpret what happens there, and say that the perp was killed (if indeed that’s what happens) for an attempted theft, ignoring the assault.
          You, Tuck, appear to be one of those people.

          @Mac: “Friar Tuck, before you continue your BS pitch, please learn the difference between “property” and “propriety”.”
          This is what happens when people use voice-to-text on a phone to respond. It’s worsened by the failure to proof read before sending.

        12. avatar New Continental Army says:

          Wow allot of you here are expressing your severe ignorance of the law. There’s a HUGE difference between trespassing and B&E. If some is breaking into your home, while you are in it, THATS NOT TRESSPASSING. THATS A HOME INVASION. You ignorant fucks need to read up. BIG LEAGUE DIFFERENCE. Next time I’ll type in smaller and caps lock words so you retards can understand it better.

      2. avatar New Continental Army says:

        No. Rights can be removed via due process. That’s why we have prisons. Also, animals like this don’t have the right to trample on others. So they get shot like the animals they are. The good news is then they’re not a burden on the taxpayers.

      3. avatar Connie says:

        Below comments by Friar Tuck, a troll. Amusing. Hope someone steals him blind as he sits, terrified, on his snowflake ass. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha—

    2. avatar Cafengocmy says:

      Like maybe a violent offender has a right to your stuff?

    3. avatar JasonM says:

      They do have rights. They have the right to be safe from unwarranted searches and seizures, the right to remain silent, the right to a fair trial, the right to question their accusers, and the presumption of innocence.
      They do not have the right to violate others’ rights to life, liberty, and property.

      1. avatar Klaus Von Schmitto says:

        Bingo. So much this. And I would, defend those rights to his death.

      2. avatar Friar Tuck says:

        You guys keep trying to play a semantics game buy conveniently equating propriety with life. I know you would like to able to kill another human being simply for stealing from you, but you can’t, it really is that simple. In 90% of places under 90% of circumstances you will be the one in prison. You do not have a natural of legal right to defend propriety with lethal force, do so at your own peril.

        1. The right to property is the fundamental right. It is the basis for the right to life: I own myself, and because I do, I also own, by right, the fruits of my labors.

        2. avatar Friar Tuck says:

          Alan – I’m sure the judge / jury will find that very convincing. See ya at the parole hearing in seven years. Oh bye the way all the joints are full of “libertarians”, you’ll finally get to see how your fantasy world works in real life. You’ll be using Rand pages to wipe the blood out of your chonis.

        3. avatar New Continental Army says:

          You really have no clue what you’re talking about. Your simply fear mongering and trying to sound tough. You’re not.

        4. @Friar Tuck – That’s “Mr. Esworthy” to you.

          And now who’s playing games? You differentiated the rights to life and property, and I contradicted you by saying that the former is a derivative to the latter. Rights being inalienable, what do the judge and jury have to do with the nature of rights? They certainly have a role in adjudicating conflicts involving violation of rights, but not in defining their essence.

          Stay on topic, will you, please? Thank you.

        5. avatar Friar Tuck says:

          In a sense I’m trying to be a friend. This site is an echo chamber were people make prescriptive statements (the way things should be according to them) and use vague philosophical supposition to make them sound like descriptive statements (the way things actually are). In many places you can kill some one if they are breaking in to your home yes, absolutely, that’s not the argument i’m making. You can’t use lethal force to defend propriety! And clearly there are guys here that are either stupid enough or crazy enough to believe the opposite, or at least wish the opposite, that could end up getting them and any one around them in a lot of trouble that no amount of theoretical musing will get them out of.

        6. avatar jwm says:

          Tuck. This guy wasn’t shot for stealing property( I spelled the word property correctly) he was shot for attacking the property owner.

          You’re another fine example why Trump will be a two term president and gives us a conservative supreme court that will last for decades.

        7. @Friar Tuck:

          You can’t use lethal force to defend propriety[sic]!

          Yes, you can. Have a chat with a few business owners who were in Koreatown during the Rodney King rioting in Los Angeles in 1992. Then have a chat with similar vintage LAPD officers and then with city prosecutors and judges at that time.

        8. avatar Friar Tuck says:

          The author speculates he attacked the shop keep, high likelihood he did, in which case that’s legally justifiable depending on the specifics, but it doesn’t state for sure. My comments are in response to the first several posters who seem to hold philosophically that in general thieves can or should be killed. I can assure you, they are wrong. I can also assure you that if you care to test the theory you will ruin your own life. Not sure what Trump has to do with any of that, but whatever.

        9. avatar Friar Tuck says:

          Wow we might be neighbors, oh wait no your Austrian right? Yeah, know, knew plenty of both. Had friends that were down on slauson with there fathers on the roofs, knew guys that did a week straight 10-8, most retired now. They were occupying there shops, if you try to burn down a building that’s occupied, that’s lethal force you can respond in kind.

        10. avatar New Continental Army says:

          Triar Fuck. Do yourself a favor and look up Castile doctrine and stand your ground laws in the majority of states. That means not NY, NJ, or California.

  2. avatar jwm says:

    Yes. Your brother was human. And he was someone’s son. But his actions forced another human to have to take his life. A 67yo store owner confronted with a violent reaction to catching your brother in the act of his crime.

    Does anyone for a minute think that 67 yo man was looking forward to an excuse to kill another human? He was forced into his actions. Forced by a drug addict with a history of violence.

    1. avatar Rad Man says:

      Operative word here? “Was” .

    2. avatar Friar Tuck says:

      Yes there are many 50, 60, 70 year old men on this forum that clearly would relish the opportunity to take another human beings life, provided they were exempt from the consequences. There are many geezers and geeks on this forum that claim to want to start a friggin civil war. Were have you been? People post retarded angry nerd nonsense like that here almost every day

      1. avatar EWTHeckman says:

        So you’re a mind reader? Or just an ordinary bigot throwing around false accusations based on intentional misreading?

        1. avatar Friar Tuck says:

          Nope, scroll through the forum dude, they say it themselves, and I’ve only been chuckling at you guys occasionally for a few months. From my mouth to gods ears. Dude pick any article of this type, or any one with over 70 comments or so, bet it won’t take you 15 minutes.

        2. avatar Kenneth says:

          I think it’s “ordinary bigot”. The only other I can think of who would cut and paste their same comments over and over would be paid trolls, and most of them aren’t allowed to do that. The stupid is too obvious.

        3. avatar Toni says:

          Friar Tuck, i think you are very mistaken in that assessment. for starters i really dont think any of us want to kill anyone let alone civil war however there are quite a few of us who have kids and or grandkids (in my case just nieces and nephews) who want true liberty for those we love and not slavery and while we dislike the idea of war we would rather it came in our time and we fought than left that to those we love when the blood price would be even higher. keeping liberty no matter what anyone says is not won and lost at the ballot box. it is won and lost on the battle field. the ballot box only slows the process to the next war and that is only if those going to the ballot box learn the lessons of the lead up to the previous war. BTW i am in australia and i have been saying the exact same thing on this subject since i was 16…. dont think that is going to change any time soon. now if you are one that would accept liberty lite (of which there is really no such thing) then you are a traitor to all who hold liberty dear and should depart with haste from the presence and lands of those who do hold liberty dear because it wont take long especially when the time comes for them to recognize you as such.

        4. avatar Excedrine says:

          @Toni — You might want to start using some punctuation, the lack of which makes your commentary VERY difficult to read.

      2. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

        Speaking of angry retarded nerds . . .

        1. avatar Chris says:

          Right? Pot, kettle, black..And when you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss also gazes into you.

      3. avatar jwm says:

        So the business owner that was suddenly and violently confronted by an intruder was somehow hoping to kill a human because you read some half assed wind baggery on an internet forum, tuck?

        You’re a treasure to the pro Trump crowd, tuck. I hope you hang around here for a long time.

        1. avatar Friar Tuck says:

          Who says I don’t support him? Again how does the heart breaking disappointment of being told that the law dictates who can and can’t be killed not your base emotions inform the impulse to vote for Trump? Does the average trump votoer have a burning desire to rally round the cause of changing self defense laws our was it about economic marginalization as im typically told?

        2. avatar jwm says:

          Tuck. Only 3 comments in on this thread and you were condemning folks for wanting to kill over property. 2 of those comments had no such remarks in them and the third did wish for the right to use deadly force to protect property.

          Reading your comments I doubt you support Trump. You appear to be a left wing troll type trying to build a case that all of us at ttag are blood thirsty,

          But you keep up the wide eyed innocent front when called out. We’ve dealt with your kind before. You guys always think you’re new and creative. You ain’t.

        3. avatar Friar Tuck says:

          My approach is for my amusement yes, guilty as charged. My intentions are actually quite genuine though. I don’t want anyone here, but especially the very, very few impressionable young people that may possibly just be getting interested in guns and 2a politics believing that they can shoot somebody over an I-phone. That’s no bueno for any of us. Good night sarge.

        4. avatar Big Bill says:

          “My approach is for my amusement yes, guilty as charged. ”

          You do understand that that makes you a troll, right?

  3. avatar former water walker says:

    Poor baby…you reap what you sow. No sympathy from me. If I did the same thing I’d expect no quarter.

  4. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    “It’s just hard,” his sister said. “I just want people to know that he was human, too.”
    Yes, yes, I understand. This is why guns and knives should be kept out of general public’s hands so that vigilante wild west justice is not dispensed. This incident should be presented to a higher court to take the rights of this girl’s misguided brother into account.
    Uh, huh.
    I bet he was an aspiring rapper about to turn his life around.

    1. avatar Red in CO says:

      “He was a good boy”

      Yeah, they’re always “good boys”, even when they’re gang bangers who get shot in a disputed over drug sales turf or whatever

  5. avatar Moltar says:

    He was such a good boy … turning his life around…. wouldn’t hurt a fly…. helped nuns across the street and volunteered in the orphanage…. wash rinse repeat.

    Why not just tell the truth?? Really y’all know the reporters are going to find his record and y’all know he attacked a guy with a screwdriver. Just freakin tell the truth. I’m so tired of seeing this after every scumbag gets shot. Some sobbing family member, spouse, romantic partner, or acquaintance comes crawling out infront of the cameras and with a shaking voice through the tears they say some variation of the same worn out statement.
    “They were such a good person, turning their life around, and wouldn’t hurt anyone/ did not have a history of violence.”
    Then like a week later some reporter digs up the criminal record for said deceased scumbag and we find out he did drugs, strangled orphans, and raped nuns on a near weekly basis. I realize you loved your little scumbag but just be honest. You can love someone and still know they have a problem.

    1. avatar Mr Lizard says:

      More like fake-sobbing = lawsuit so that at least this junkie can provide some value to them.

      1. avatar Moltar says:

        I get that feeling sometimes too… Like when they file a lawsuit against the defender the day after the police decide not to pursue charges.

    2. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      I’m not sure who I hate more, the criminals or those that enable and/or lie for them.

      1. avatar Moltar says:

        Honestly that’s a difficult one to figure out. Especially in cases of school shootings, who is to say that had the parents intervened at some point the shooting would have been prevented. Columbine, Parkland, Sandy Hook, and all the rest the parents freakin knew lil Billy was off his rocker, they knew he was violent, they knew he was showing sociopathic tendencies and yet they still bought him guns or they covered up his dangerous behavior. They told themselves it was just a phase that their little angel would never harm anyone. Then lil Billy wipes out his classmates and the parent(s)? Well they’re up there on stage saying the gun made Billy do it.

    3. avatar I shot lucifer says:

      Let the penguins die, they work for the Pope, and the Pope is a shitbag. Beside Nuns have Habits.

      1. avatar luigi says:

        i’ll have what he’s having

        1. avatar jwm says:

          Oh, hell no. That stuff turns your brains to mush.

  6. avatar Excedrine says:

    He was Human, yes. He was also stupid, played stupid games, and won a stupid prize.

    Them’s the breaks, kiddo. If you force your way onto someone else’s property, you’ve earned an appropriate response.

  7. avatar texmln says:

    You give up your rights when you choose to become a criminal as far as I’m concerned. If you steal you should hang, period. Screw the law, it should be 100% victim’s choice.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      ‘Screw the law’ is what got this fellow shot.

  8. avatar Ralph says:

    Yes, he was human, which is why he was shot. If he was a parakeet, he might have been trapped in a net. But then again, a parakeet wouldn’t have been caught stealing some human’s stuff.

    1. avatar California Richard says:

      Hitler was Human.
      Stalin was Human.
      Sadam Hussein was Human.
      The sky is blue.
      Water is wet.
      My cat’s breath smells like cat food.
      I never understood this whole idea of people whining about someone being “human”.

      1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

        The perp is always referred to as human, but they forget the victims are human also. Seems victims don’t count.

        1. avatar CZJay says:

          Victims are not human, they are a statistic.

      2. avatar CZJay says:

        Animals are very predictable and more easily controlled. Humans on drugs can be very wild and unreasonable. You could argue that in that particular situation her human brother was much more dangerous than a wild animal.

  9. avatar neiowa says:

    Given the leftwing prog gov’t of Des Moines & Polk County, Ia I would not bet on good outcome for the store owner. Good bet he will be charged.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Could depend on the political aspirations of the lawyer.

  10. avatar rt66paul says:

    This isn’t a case of someone stealing a loaf of bread and some peanut butter because he was hungry, this was a case of stealing items that he could sell for drugs. If he was hungry, there are many people that would feed him, even though he is slime.

    He was shot and killed while attempting to steal someones goods so he could profit – I have no sympathy for him.

  11. avatar michael says:

    “…they’re not calling it a “stand your ground” case just yet”

    They’re not calling it a SELF DEFENSE case just yet.

    Don’t contribute to the misuse of SYG terminology.

  12. avatar Colt Magnum says:

    A career in crime carries risks. When stealing property, the criminal runs the risk of angering the wrong person. Not everyone reacts to the theft of their property lawfully. The sister should take solace in the fact that her brother died while working in the career he loved.

  13. avatar Karl says:

    I like the part in the article that states that the family of the person who was shot admitted that there was wrongdoing on both sides. Exactly what wrongdoing was being done by the side of the guy being robbed? How do you admit something for someone else?

    Can I admit that the government pisses away our tax money for both of us so I don’t have to send them with dollars that they’re going to miss use? Right?

    1. avatar Anymouse says:

      Yes. And since when do you unilaterally get to admit things for other people? If that’s a thing now, I’d like the admit that Bloomberg is an insecure fascist trying to rob the rights of others while paying some to exercise those rights for his benefit.

    2. avatar EWTHeckman says:

      I also noticed that viscous weasel-wording by that bigoted “reporter.” You can only admit to wrongdoing for your own actions or for a person you are defending. The sister was not defending the store owner, she was attacking him. That is never an “admission”, it is an accusation.

      And the media wonders why we think they’re aggressively biased and undermining civilization… because they are.

  14. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

    As a young man, I was a world class wrestler who competed in Olympic trials (turns out, I was a cut below, and that’s before I blew out my ACL, lol). I’m 52 now. I’m older, heavier and slower these days. Because I know first hand the physical abilities of young men, I know I’m no match for them today. That’s why I carry a gun.

    1. avatar California Richard says:

      This guy who got himself shot in Des Moines sounds like an Olympic level competitor in the stupid games… got himself the gold medal of stupid prizes.

    2. avatar Ed Schrade says:

      I am 68 yrs. old and carry for same reason. I am sure that this store owner did not get up that morning and say ” let’s go shoot someone today”. He would of been happy with another uneventful day instead of what came to pass. Hope the cops leave him alone.

  15. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    He sure was human. I bet the person who shot him feels terrible he had to take a life, but ultimately the choices weren’t his they were the perpetrators. Sadly, playing stupid games means some times you win a stupid prize.

  16. avatar Greg says:

    How about we erase the word “wrongdoing” from the English language?

    Committing crimes, violent or otherwise, is not “wrongdoing”, it is crime.

    The best way to avoid getting shot is to avoid putting yourself into situations that carry that risk. Like stealing from people who prefer to keep what is theirs.

    1. avatar drunkEODguy says:

      I just like saying “doing wrong” as, while exactly the same thing, carries a much heavier implication.

  17. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

    The world is just a little bit better now, but just a little…

  18. avatar strych9 says:

    I have long felt that burglary isnt a capital crime.

    That said, IMHO, every burglary you commit is the equivalent of walking up to a craps table and betting your life on a single roll of the dice and you know full well that such a roll could come up snake eyes.

    So, if you get blasted while doing a burglary I really don’t feel bad for you.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      People teach their kids that stealing is wrong. What they should be teaching them is stealing will get you killed.

      Everyone does wrong sometimes. Not everyone comes back from the dead.

      1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

        “People teach their kids that stealing is wrong.”

        MOST people teach their children stealing is wrong.

        I recall after one of the major riots over the past 5 years or so, Baltimore, I think it was, the mother of a looter who was caught was asked by the ‘reporter’ what she thought about her kid getting caught.

        She replied something along the lines of “Well, he needed new clothes.”

        At the same riot loot-fest, another TV crew caught a mother dragging her kid home by the hair after she saw him looting on live national TV. I hope his looting buddies gave him royal hell for getting caught.

        Most parents don’t want their kids stealing. We have a very serious problem when parents justify theft…

      2. avatar Big Bill says:

        Parents also need to teach their kids that actions have consequences, and those consequences aren’t always defined by laws.
        While stealing isn’t a capital offense, assault can quickly become just that. Offering violence as a way to try to get out of the consequences of theft can (and often does) result in severe bodily injury, and even death. It’s a natural consequence of offering violence to another.
        Friar Tuck would do well to understand that.

  19. avatar CZJay says:

    If a Californian can shoot and not get charged…

  20. avatar Gralnok says:

    The fact he’s a human is irrelevant. He could be a Na’vi from Avatar for all I care and for all anybody else should care, the fact remains he shouldn’t go breaking into businesses, stealing equipment, and attacking people.

  21. avatar Wally1 says:

    I hope the perp goes straight to hell. This scumbag doper has probably only been caught for 2% of the crimes he has committed. Human?, well maybe, but certainly not a contributing member to society. He should get a crime prevention award cause he won’t be committing any more crimes.

  22. avatar GS650G says:

    If they have SO much shit about this guy how come they didn’t help him.and get more involved.with him?

  23. avatar Chris says:

    “I just want people to know that he was human, too.”

    Yep, he was. Absolutely true, he was a human. Now he’s dead and probably in hell. You don’t want to get shot for being a burglar, don’t be a burglar! Pretty simple, actually. Need money? Get a job. Then you can buy things instead of stealing them and getting shot then winding up in hell wondering how you got there.

    1. avatar John J. McCarthy, Jr. says:

      Well said.

  24. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    Property theft was reason to get shot in the old west. And it was a good thing.

    1. avatar Toni says:

      and horse theft was a hanging offense. part of the reason was if a person was used to riding and not accustomed to walking it would likely have the same effect as putting a gun to their head and pulling the trigger. smaller theft they may well just have put you in the stocks for a week in the public square… eg a loaf of bread

  25. avatar Sal Chichon says:

    I am so happy that the thief in this story is dead. As somebody who has been the victim of theft before, all I want are dead thieves.

  26. avatar John J. McCarthy, Jr. says:

    Screw the family.

    1. avatar Terclinger says:

      I think that family (and similar) should be shamed into leaving town.

  27. avatar Sora says:

    Encounter the RIGHT Business and the RIGHT Business Owner who cleans up the community where the Justice system FAILS to do so.

  28. avatar Terclinger says:

    @ Friar Tuck. “I know you would like to able to kill another human being simply for stealing from you”

    What kind of pile of feces do you have to eat to say stupid garbage like that? Where are these morons coming from, and when can we watch them being relives of their lives by some hyped up burglar?

  29. avatar ThePontificator says:

    Yeah, yeah, yeah he was just starting to turn his life around ad nauseum….

  30. avatar Chris Morton says:

    He was a “human being”… a stupid, evil human being.

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

  31. avatar Barry Rosenschein says:

    His parents should be arrested for poor parenting by allowing his poor choices. It’s time to reclaim personal responsibility.

  32. avatar MIO says:

    Yes he was human we all know that. That’s why he went down when properly shot as the thug he was. No zombies yet

  33. avatar David Keith says:

    Being required to retreat in the face of a threat is the most fag and idiotic law I’ve ever heard. I can imagine which states have that.

  34. avatar Hoodlum says:

    It isn’t so much the theft as it is the owner coming to work and finding a strange man trespassing. And we don’t know the details as to how the alleged thief reacted (violently or not) was when he was caught red handed.

    The only one I feel sympathy towards is the shooter. Justified or not taking a life does put a strain on a persons soul.

  35. avatar james says:

    The family would want the citizen to just give up their property to the Junkie.

  36. avatar james says:

    Do stupid things, win stupid prize, DRT.

  37. avatar james says:

    The man forfeited his life by making the decision to become a criminal and attack the owner of the business.

  38. avatar Capn Jack says:

    If I wake up in the middle of the night and find a masked person in my bedroom,
    I know they’re not there to borrow a cup of sugar.

  39. avatar Aleric says:

    Now he is a DEAD human, case closed.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email