Florida Store Owner Arrested for Opening Fire on Fleeing Beer Thief

Mehedeun Hasan Beer Thief Shooting Arrested

courtesy wesh.com

Here’s a pro tip: don’t learn the law and the rules of armed self defense the hard way. A Lakeland, Florida gas station owner., Mehedeun Hasan, is in serious legal jeopardy after shooting a fleeing beer thief.

An owner of a convenience store in Lakeland has been charged with attempted murder after shooting at a man accused of stealing three cases of beer.

Polk County Sheriff’s Office officials said Rennie Defoe, 43, of Plant City, walked out of the Shell gas station on Combee Road North with three 18-packs of Natural Ice Beer without paying Tuesday.

The stores owners, Mehedeun Hasan and his father Q M Monsur Rahman, followed Defoe out of the store to confront him, according to authorities.

While no store owner wants to see his hard-earned money walk out the door in the arms of a brazen thief, Defoe — a multiple felon — clearly presented no danger to either Hasan or Rahman. Yet both followed him out of the store where Hasan shot him as he drove away.

Officials said a bullet struck Defoe through his left arm and chest. As he fled the area he crashed his car at intersection of East Main Street and Fish Hatchery Road, deputies said.

Defoe is listed in critical condition at Lakeland Regional Health Medical Center.

Hasan faces attempted second-degree murder charges and shooting into an occupied vehicle.

And all over three cases of Natty Ice. Here’s hoping that Defoe recovers, if for no other reason than avoiding having Hasan’s charge upgraded to second degree murder.

comments

  1. avatar Andy Buckmichael says:

    You do not kill someone over beer.

    1. avatar jwm says:

      This. As much as I feel for the business owner getting ripped off this way he handled it wrong.

    2. avatar anonymoose says:

      Especially not crappy beer. I’d shoot a mofo over a 6-pack of Ballast Point or a bottle of Tripel though.

      1. avatar Marc says:

        You just mentioned Ballast Point and Belgian Tripel in the same sentence. To the pit of inequity with you!

        1. avatar Joe says:

          To the pit???? With a comment like that he is wallowing at the bottom of it already!!!!

    3. avatar Garrett Garvey says:

      I see no reason why you can’t shoot, even kill someone robbing you! His mistake was not dragging him back in the store, plus he left him alive to sue. I will contribute to his defense!

      1. avatar Kendahl says:

        The crime scene guys will readily detect that you dragged the body inside. That’s altering evidence and will destroy any chance of successfully claiming self defense.

      2. avatar California Richard says:

        What the bad guy did was shoplifting (minor misdemeanor) not robbery (violent felony). That being said, charging the store clerk with attempted murder is a bit much. If they guy threw the beer out of the car before the shooting, I have a feeling the store clerk wouldn’t have shot him. Murder means the store clerk wanted the suspect dead…. I have the feeling he just wanted to stop the thief and get his stuff back.

        1. avatar Bigus Dickus says:

          Right, so running after someone who has left the scene and firing through the open driver window of their car is not excessive?

          Details here. The thief walked into the store, picked up the beer then turned around and walked out. There was no confrontation with the owner, no threat of violence, no brandishing of a weapon, nothing.

          If you believe this allows for the kind of violent response the owner initiated, you have absolutely no business owning a firearm much less carrying one. If you also believe the owners actions are 100% legit, you will find yourself on the receiving end of a felony gun charge some day.

        2. avatar California Richard says:

          The law, like my opinion, is nuanced and isn’t applied only in the extreme. The store clerk is “felony stupid” and guilty of aggravated assault with a firearm. He’s going to lose his freedom, his job, probably his house and all his possessions, and he and the store are going to pay the theif a lot of money. But is he guilty of attempted murder? No.

          When I say: “…charging the store clerk with attempted murder is a bit much,” it doesn’t mean: “..you believe this allows for the kind of violent response the owner initiated,”

          When I say: “..Murder means the store clerk wanted the suspect dead…. I have the feeling he just wanted to stop the thief and get his stuff back,” it does not mean: “…you also believe the owners actions are 100% legit..”

          I don’t know where you got all that crap from, but it certainly wasnt from my comment or an accurate reflection of my opinion.

        3. avatar Rod D Whitney says:

          Besides the shoplifting crime, he entered the establishment to commit a crime, that is also known as burglary which is a felony.

      3. avatar TomC says:

        I’m not quite sure if Garrett is a troll, a Democrat agent provocateur, or just an idiot, but after reading his posts I’m inclined to think ALL OF THE ABOVE.

    4. avatar Thieves are lame says:

      I disagree, all thieves should be summarily executed. Unless you are provably starving to death and stealing food or provably dying of dehydration and stealing water.

      Beyond immediate needs for survival, thieves don’t belong above ground. IMO.

      “Oh but these are things that can be replaced!”

      Really? Who is going to replace the time of my life I spent earning the money to pay for said things? I’m never getting that time back.

      I’m an extremist, I know, but there used to be a time where we’d hang thieves. Still, store owner in this story didn’t quite think this one out, because existing law is not going to be on his side on this one.

      1. avatar Kendahl says:

        I understand and sympathize but that’s not the law. The storekeeper’s legal bills will exceed the cost of all the beer he ever stocked.

        1. avatar CZJay says:

          It’s not the law anymore, but it can be.

          It’s about the “principle” not the beer or the money.

          Letting criminals continue to be criminals is how you ruin your society. Felons have no fear of the citizenry just like the government doesn’t. And you wonder why America is becoming a shithole country.

          Now you got me sounding like a Republican.

        2. avatar RedRed says:

          Yes, the wonderful law states that anyone can come steal all of your property and in some states you can’t even pull a gun on them. Apparently, someone in the state legislature wants to ensure criminals keep their jobs too!

      2. avatar Ed Schrade says:

        If I was on the jury he would not get convicted. This is what happens when the laws on theft are mostly slanted towards letting the crooks off with little or no sentence.

        1. avatar Toos says:

          Second. Looks like we need 10 more and the owner walks. But you know trial by his peers will be the thief’s peers, not working people or store owners, because everyone else will be eliminated during jury selection.

          BTW, why do these things always start with “Florida man…?”

      3. avatar J williams says:

        Amen

    5. avatar ANONNYMOUS says:

      Mental Health on both sides of the incident.

      I trust this is a lesson for everyone about **Criminal Justice and **Criminal Law** allowing the criminal(s) to break the law, get captured, then passing the cost onto the law abiding citizen(s), paying court costs, room and board.

      Another way to put it, anyone can walk-up to you, punch you in the face, turn and begin to flee, and you are not legally able to shoot the criminal because he/she is fleeing; or stealing your stuff while running/walking away.

      Keep your insurance up to date; both property and Defense insurance. In this case, what is cheaper, and more sensible, the current cost of both criminal and civil legal teams or a higher property insurance premium?

      1. avatar Rod D Whitney says:

        Now you are wrong, you used the words Criminal and Justice in the same sentence.

    6. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      I’m of a split opinion on this; first, beer is essentially liquid bread and you should never shoot a man who resorts to stealing bread. On the other hand, if the thief is so pathetic as to steal Natty Ice, you’re probably doing him a favor by killing him.

    7. avatar Larry says:

      I agree no one should be shot over beer. He posed no threat!!

    8. avatar MiserableBastard says:

      Unless you are in Texas

  2. avatar Dan says:

    Too bad the store owner didnt kill the beer thief and didnt say Allah hu akhbar cause the prosecutor wouldnt file charges without being labeled a racist for going after a sand mayate for shooting the regular mayate

    1. avatar Innbread hillbillie says:

      This, dam furrornoors cumming to amerika. amerika was cre8ed only for the wite man.

    2. avatar Larry says:

      Right all the store owner had to do was play the Muslim card…. I mean after all they had to right to kill all infidels!!! sarcasm intended

    3. avatar Airborne8Deuce says:

      You’re not slick using mayate in your comments. I find it pretty offensive. Keep your derogatory terms to yourself.

  3. avatar Supermike says:

    Let’s not miss the part where he drops his gun on the way out of the store… lol

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

      “Let’s not miss the part where he drops his gun on the way out of the store… ”

      Well, the store owner was conscientious enough to pick the gun up, keeping a child from finding it and potentially hurting them… 😉

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        He didn’t shoot an innocent man while picking it up and he hit his intended target. He must have taken the higher level FBI training classes.

  4. Klamath Falls Herald and News: Wednesday, February 15th, 2017
    Letters To The Editor
    Gun rights should be kept strong

    “Judge sides with former prosecutor in $250K suit” (Herald and News, Feb.10), elicits a revisit to the issue of deadly/lethal force and concealed carry.

    I allude to two past Herald and News letters of mine addressing this issue. They include: “Carrying a firearm is a serious matter, so….” (July 21, 2013), and “Common Sense in gun decisions a good thing” (Feb. 11, 2011), respectively.

    Both remain archived in the Herald and News.

    I again strongly endorse the writings of Massad Ayoob, former police captain, gun scribe, writer and national expert on deadly/lethal force, including concealed carry at http://www.ayoob.com. Also, his latest 2014 book: “Deadly Force: Understanding Your Right To Self Defense.” Massad Ayoob is also founder of Lethal Force Institute/Police Bookshelf in Concord, N.H. In “The Gun Digest Book of Concealed Carry” by this author, Mas writes: “Fight for your rights (Second Amendment) and privileges.

    There are those in this society who work in a tireless, well-funded concerted effort to deprive you and your children of the right to self protection. You (the public) have a genuine duty ‘to you and yours’ to fight that. This is a civil rights/human rights issue.

    The great authority on common law, Lord Blackstone once stated: ‘self-defense is the highest of human rights’. Therefore, work hard to keep it, because powerful forces don’t want you and your descendants to have it.”

    Finally, Brian Jenning’s Wednesday, Feb. 8 article: “Ladies of Lead: Profiling the women who choose to carry a gun” (with online video) depicts over 4,200 women alone in Deschutes County (Bend), Oregon who collectively applied for a concealed carry permit in 2016. That indeed is astronomical!

    James A. Farmer, Merrill

    On the net: The Klamath Falls Herald and News at http://www.heraldandnews.com

  5. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    News reports stated that the beer thief was a career criminal with an extensive police record…..

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

      Now, look, the poor fellow was just turning his life around.

      Well, after he was going to slam 54 beers, anyways…

  6. avatar Henry says:

    Holy Cow, Why didn’t he just get his plate number and call the police??

    1. avatar D Y says:

      Why didn’t the guy just not steal someone else’s property? No harm no foul IMO. No innocent party was harmed in the making of this incident. Except now, when the guy who’s stuff got stolen is arrested.

      Obviously not the proper response by the store owner in our society, but the root cause of this incident was the theft. The repercussions of your decision to steal something are the result of your action. Otherwise it kind of sounds like making gun owners criminals if their guns are stolen and they weren’t locked up…

      1. avatar Bcb says:

        No kidding. Not saying the beer was a huge windfall lost but just doesn’t seem right that the victim here should be considered a victim. Our society is so dumb.

        1. avatar D Y says:

          As I’ve seen commented on this website before, but paraphrased, and not as succinct: A society that has you turn tail and run, or simply accept your fate, is not one that favors the law abiding.

          MAYBE the crook would have been caught and faced consequences if the police were called. But if he was a career criminal, as I’ve heard thus far, obviously the previous consequences haven’t worked. The store owner had a way and the desire to do something about theft of HIS property, and he did.

          There must be norms, and actions that one takes outside of those norms should be met with repercussions. The more severe the repercussions, the less recidivism there will be. This guy was stealing beer, next week….? Is he breaking into a house he doesn’t know was occupied? Does he harm the occupant?

          Career criminals often stop being career criminals when they are met by an armed citizen or law enforcement officer.

      2. avatar Garrett Garvey says:

        YES! IT’S THE CROOKS FAULT, NOT THE STORE OWNER!!

  7. avatar jwtaylor says:

    If someone comes in and steals all of your Natty Light, you thank them, not shoot them.

  8. avatar spitfirerobinson says:

    Cut a thief’s hand off and they’ll only steal one more time.

  9. avatar LC says:

    People have been shot and killed for less…like disrespect…or using the infamous N word at the wrong time

    1. avatar Andy Buckmichael says:

      I am sick about all of this crap about the “n” word. It is what they are and they know it.

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        I don’t understand why black people decided to keep a word, designed to dehumanize them, alive by using it against themselves and proliferating it amongst all the people who have the internet. Now that word won’t ever go away and non blacks will use it in everyday speech around the world.

  10. avatar JOHN B THAYER says:

    The store owner did society a favor by taking out a multiple felon. We are all better off with fewer feral predators around us.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      The government got mad that a non government worker “took the law into his own hands” and did so with a gun.

      You peasants have to learn your place. That property isn’t even yours. The government will decide what you get to keep/have. Those serfs have not been sanctioned to take part of the justice system.

  11. avatar former water walker says:

    Pretty graphic video of what NOT to do. I’m all for shooting lowlife scum attacking you but DAMN! Yeah the perp was a thief but he basically tried to execute him.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Under Islam you can’t drink alcohol. You must be understanding…

    1. avatar Andy Buckmichael says:

      It will be but if it had been a useless cop murdering someone, no problem.

  12. avatar Max says:

    The store owner should have known it’s only okay to shoot a fleeing suspect if it’s through your car’s windshield as you chase them down a busy street.

    1. avatar Andy Buckmichael says:

      Only if you are a useless scum cop.

    2. avatar CZJay says:

      Haven’t you been training in advance fighting from a vehicle tactics? You got to move into the modern world.

  13. avatar BehindEnemyLines says:

    Thieves can turn their life around. Property isn’t worth shooting someone over unless they’re stealing a gun, or maybe a car if you think they’re going to use it as a weapon. If they’re not an imminent threat to anybody’s bodily integrity, then I can’t justify shooting them.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      I disagree.

      If you can’t defend/have life, liberty and property, what is the point of being a upstanding citizen?

      Thieves/robbers/muggers need to fear death not community service or house arrest. The risk/reward ratio should not be in the criminal’s favor.

      In a free society criminals don’t thrive, they die without honor.

  14. avatar whitey says:

    So when a cop shoots at a fleeing car while being the driver of a patrol vehicle and risking bystanders lives, this is ok, but when a civilian does something much less dangerous to bystanders such as shooting from a standing position this is attempted murder?

    1. avatar Andy Buckmichael says:

      You got it. Scum cops get away with murder every day in this country.

    2. avatar Hooty says:

      Bro, that cop was shooting at armed men who had already tried to kill someone. This guy walked out of a convenience store with beer…

      1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

        The cop committed multiple counts of reckless endangerment and should die in prison.

        1. avatar Andy Buckmichael says:

          He should die from a head shot in the street.

      2. avatar CZJay says:

        I don’t know exactly when the store owner shot at the car… I have seen numerous incidents where cops shoot people dead as they are fleeing when the cop was in no danger or they created the danger.

        1. avatar Hooty says:

          100% agree, but comparing this shooting to the one a couple of days ago with the cop in his car is a false equivalency. Just pointing that out.

  15. avatar SkippingDog says:

    So many guns, but so few brains.

  16. avatar Hooty says:

    If you want Natty Ice, it’s not that expensive. Just pay. If you’re not paying for the beer, why the hell are you stealing Natty Freaking Ice?

  17. avatar Ralph says:

    What the store owner should have done is distract the thief so the owner’s son could shake all the cans very vigorously without the BG knowing.

    Then they should have let the [email protected] drive away.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Clearly you haven’t been taking po-po training classes.

      What they should have done is: Step behind the vehicle and order the criminal to stop. Once the reverse lights turn on mag dump with extreme fear for your and other’s safety.

      I’m kind of joking, but that might have actually made a difference in this case.

  18. avatar Colt Magnum says:

    When criminals attempt to steal someone else’s property, they run the risk of angering the wrong person. Some people are willing to break the law themselves in order to prevent the crook from stealing their stuff. I don’t condone that overreaction, but I don’t feel sorry for the thief. The thief accepted the risk.

  19. avatar Manse Jolly says:

    What was the name of the case in TX where a neighbors house was being burgled and a man shot them outright? I rem hearing a piece of the 911 call, the operator told the guy not to and shooter said law in TX was on his side.

    found it finally…has it been that long ago? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Horn_shooting_controversy

  20. avatar JR Pollock says:

    I hope Mr Hasan draws a jury of good, upstanding Grady Judd supporters. Here’s the “victim’s” Florida Department of Corrections page.

    http://www.dc.state.fl.us/offenderSearch/detail.aspx?Page=Detail&DCNumber=557107&TypeSearch=IR

  21. avatar CZJay says:

    I wouldn’t give out a guilty verdict to the victim [store owner].

    People should be able to shoot someone stealing their property if that criminal refuses to relinquish it. Just like in this case. Otherwise, criminals will be embolden to simply walk onto someone’s property and nonchalantly take their stuff. Which is exactly what happened with this felon — he knew the Florida government would slap him on the wrist and give the victim a death sentence.

    1. avatar Hooty says:

      Life is always more important than property. Always. The lives of men are not ours to take unless in defense of our own. You wanna beat a thief, taze them, pepper spray, damage their property, anything else and I’ll back you up. But ending the life of someone’s son, someone’s brother, someone’s father is not acceptable, no matter HOW big of a bag of dicks they are. The law of God and the law of man both agree on this. Especially for a couple of cases of beer. Matthew 5:38

      1. avatar Scoutino says:

        “Life is always more important than property. Always.”

        No. My life is more important to me. Not a thief’s life.
        I didn’t win my property in a lottery. I paid every little piece of it with my labor and chunk of my life time. I can make more money, but I can’t get more time on this Earth. He who steals my property steals my life.

        Now, it was neither smart or legal to shoot the fleeing thief.

        1. avatar Hooty says:

          I really do like the mentality that my possessions are equivalent to money, and I spent hours of my life earning that money, so my possessions are my life. I get that logic and I won’t disagree with it, but I stand by my statement that the lives of men are not ours to take. That’s a religious argument for me, and I understand that not all people share my beliefs. From a logical perspective I totally get your argument.

          I’d ask for clarification on your final statement. Are you asserting that shooting a fleeing thief is justified, but it is not smart or legal? Is it not smart BECAUSE it’s not legal? Because this man may spend years of his life in prison protecting property that it took him maybe a day (max) to purchase?

  22. avatar Last OfTheOldOnes says:

    You rob and steal a man’s hard work, you should be shot……..no question.

    Awhile back after they passed the Castle Law here in South Carolina, a neighbor in the town where I used to live near Charleston, heard someone trying to get into his truck. He comes out with his shotgun as the criminal gets into his car and takes off. He shoots out the rear window as the car is leaving.

    Cops come by and say there is nothing they can do because he was covered by the Castle Law………That was pretty cool!

    1. avatar ANONNYMOUS says:

      Not sure of how cool it is considering:
      1) it sounds like the vehicle was successfully taken (stolen).
      2) the damage to the vehicle from the gunfire
      3) if the thief was hit, now there is vehicle/property damage, plus a clean-up of bodily fluids on isle-8.

      Anything further?

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        Insurance can cover the car. The carjacker learns that he needs to fear his victim and the police. If the criminal is dead we won’t need to fund his prison life, the court system isn’t clogged up, prisons are not overcrowded, people don’t have to take work off for jury duty, there won’t be future victims, etc.

        Usually when someone steals a car they and police will destroy it. If the police find them they will get in a police chase that will risk the lives of innocent people.

        Additionally, when a carjacker is killed other carjackers get the message. They learn the risk/reward ratio is shifting against them. Eventually, they learn that it isn’t worth the effort. Few people will be carjackers, thus less criminals die stealing cars and less innocent people die because of a fleeing carjacker.

      2. avatar Last OfTheOldOnes says:

        Just to clear it up, the truck was not stolen, but a window on it was broken, and the thief fled in his own car, where the rear window was destroyed by the shotgun.

        I’m willing to bet money that the thief will NEVER return………

  23. avatar Mike says:

    I agree with much of what has been said about the store owners rights. However we live in a society the says the use of force is directly related to the level of threat. Bottom line the store owner made a bad decision and will probably pay for it in some form. It may not be right…but just the way it is.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Jury nullification.

  24. avatar Icabod says:

    Had he stood in front of the car, then fired when the car moved forward what would the call be?
    Think it was standing off to the side when he fired was the problem.

  25. avatar Paul McMichael says:

    Despite how we all feel about the dirt bag getting what he deserved; the store owner did everything wrong. Assuming he’s an immigrant, (playing the odds) his actions might be justified in his country of origin, but a clear violation of Florida Statutes. I’d like to know one thing. Was the thief charged with retail theft?

  26. avatar nyglockowner says:

    Defoe – a multiple felon.
    Well, at least the store clerk has prevented Defoe from victimizing anyone else in the future.
    Thanks Hasan!

  27. avatar Neil Hightower iii says:

    Guy was scum bag….
    Clerk wtf your life wasn’t threatened
    It was some crappy beer I know I drink natty light. (Gotta save money for ammo some how)
    Shit if a guy steals a case of natural ice I’d let him take it and not even call cops call it my good dead for the day. If a man is willing to steal that he clearly needs it.

  28. avatar JD says:

    “Defoe has a lengthy criminal history, according to Polk County officials, including being sentenced to Florida State Prison four times. He has 12 prior felony charges.”

    12 prior felonies and locked up in prison 4 times. The store owner did society a favor. Only thing wrong is he didn’t outright kill this piece of shit. Now the rest of us will cover his medical bills through higher prices passed on to those who pay their bills.

  29. avatar Kap says:

    Another reason to not let Hadji into our country they can not comprehend our Laws and Values

  30. avatar A Brit in TX says:

    I feel sorry for the business owner. I’m sure they have had to endure numerous thefts by low-life scumbags. This brazen theft just shows how some people think that they’re above the law. Apparently he has had numerous felonies over the years and is free to stroll around ripping off innocent hard-working folks.

    I personally wouldn’t convict him of anything, hopefully he just gets some sort of slap on the wrist and the acquaintances of the inured perp get the message to take their activities elsewhere.

  31. avatar J williams says:

    Hope the beer was cold.

  32. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    Store owner acted stupidly. However…

    If I’m on his jury, he will not be convicted of attempted murder or any other felony. Maybe a misdemeanor like discharging a firearm in the city. Stupid should have consequences, but I’m not sending a man to prison for trying to protect his property from thieves.

  33. avatar Bruce Clark says:

    In Florida we are blessed with a Stand your ground law, but the law in any state doesn’t allow you to confront anyone and use deadly force unless it involves personal protection of yourself or others against serious bodily injury or death. The store clerk had no business or right to do what he did. I’m glad he’s been charged and hope he goes to prison for what he did. He’s worse than the person he shot in my opinion. Stealing $25 worth of cheap beer isn’t a capital offense, and shouldn’t be punished as such.

    1. avatar Last OfTheOldOnes says:

      “The store clerk had no business or right to do what he did. I’m glad he’s been charged and hope he goes to prison for what he did.”

      NO, you are totally wrong for thinking this.
      If I were on the jury, he would be innocent, and the thief would go to jail for the maximum time allowed.

  34. avatar Ben says:

    What if store owner had shot tires out, viable alternative?

  35. avatar T1zymrgst says:

    The Store Clerk should have gotten the license plate and called 9-1-1. He was outmatched by a career criminal who has worked all of this out pretty well in his mind: (1). Go into the premises and DO NOT Converse with anybody there. (2). Take whatever you want, but again DO NOT Converse with anybody there. (3). Boldly walk out with the goods, and drive off, but again, DO NOT stop at the counter/register or at the door and look back, just proceed as if all is normal. The reason for those 3 steps? By not conversating with anyone, not acting in any threatening manner, by just going in, taking what you want, and calmly leaving the premises you are posing NO THREAT of Violence. It is a lesser crime, if you are later caught. Career criminals know how to play the system. Between arrest and sentencing, time is fully served and they walk out of court back to their life of petty crimes. Certainly no reason to be shot at by a store clerk or even a homeowner who catches him in their house walking out the door with the TV or XBox, or jewelry. Worst thing they can expect is to be shot at, like in this case, and more than likely they will survive their injuries, then WHAM! Instant Payday! Yeah, BABY! BRING IT! Yep. The career criminal had this all figured out well ahead of the store clerk. Now the Store Clerk will PAY and PAY DEARLY. Good luck getting the sympathetic judge and jury.

    1. avatar Ben says:

      And if he’d shot out tires instead? what would have been ramifications in that scenario?

  36. avatar DAVID says:

    This kind of dumbass is what gets liberals bitching at responsible gun owners. Yeah he is a f ing thief but posed no threat at all. Kill someone for $30 dollars of beer. Deserves to be arrested and charged!!

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