Female Permit Holder Who Shot At Fleeing Shoplifter Sentenced

When a loss prevention Home Depot employee in Auburn Hills, Michigan failed to stop a shoplifter exiting the store back in October, a woman with a concealed carry decided to intervene.

Unfortunately, the woman, identified as 46-year-old Tatiana Duva-Rodriguez, did not exercise sound judgment when she confronted the suspect who was already in his vehicle fleeing the scene — she opened fire.

Last Wednesday, Duva-Rodriguez was sentenced to 18 months of probation after pleading no-contest to reckless discharge of a firearm.

“I made a decision in a split second,” the Clarkston woman told a judge. “Maybe it was not the right one, but I was trying to help.”

The judge accepted Duva-Rodriguez’s claim that her intentions were good. However, the judge questioned the decision to fire upon a moving vehicle.

“I don’t believe any malice was involved in what you were doing, but I believe you have to think about what could have happened,” Judge Julie Nicholson said.

As part of the punishment, Duva-Rodriguez’s concealed carry permit was revoked until at least 2023. After leaving the courtroom, Duva-Rodriguez expressed dismay at the decision.

“I tried to help, and I learned my lesson that I will never help anybody again,” she told the media.

What are your thoughts?  Does the punishment fit the crime?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

  • Sam Meyer December 29, 2017, 11:34 am

    This person is a moron, pure and simple
    (really simple) and should be banned from carrying concealed forever. Her actions and post sentencing comment are ample evidence that she suffers from terminal stupidity and should not be handling firearms, let alone carrying one. She gives responsible CCW holders a bad name and provides more negative info for libtard antigunners to spin into their narrative.

  • Bob December 29, 2017, 10:15 am

    This is a situation where a person who is legal to conceal carry has absolutely no clue when it is lawful to discharge a firearm in defense of herself or another person. No classroom teaching can address every possible situation that might arise when you carry but a very basic principle applies to every situation. Was there any sign that her life or the life of the LPO was endangered? No absolutely not. She fires at a shoplifter fleeing in a vehicle and thinks she took the right action?? Then her reaction after sentencing confirms that she has no concept whatsoever of why she was convicted. No permit ever again for this wench.

  • loupgarous July 29, 2017, 10:50 pm

    The woman crossed a bright line. She shot at someone when neither she nor anyone else was in danger of being killed or grievously hurt. I don’t know if training was part of CCW issuance where Ms Rodriguez lives, but she came away without knowing that discharging a firearm at a fleeing shoplifter is itself a serious crime. A year and a half probation and having her CCW privileges lifted for eight years is a much lighter penalty than I’d have assessed.

  • Wayne May 23, 2016, 7:18 am

    In basic training in the Marines, we were taught: A) Never aim your weapon at someone unless you’re willing to shoot, and B) Never shoot someone unless you’re willing to kill. There is no “Aiming to wound,” it’s far too easy to make a killing mistake.

    The people who bring up “rape, murder, kidnapping” scenarios are way out of line. This was SHOPLIFTING, people, just a little more legal trouble than a traffic stop. This wasn’t a case of danger to life or great bodily harm UNTIL this vigilante opened fire. She was lucky, as were the shoplifter and bystanders; it could have been much worse.

    She gives ammo to those who want to ban guns, because she’s an IRRESPONSIBLE permit holder. I agree with the judge.

  • Vic December 22, 2015, 5:04 pm

    There is a principle which holds that a criminal is responsible for any negative consequences of his criminal act. That principle is applied when a Prosecutor may charge a criminal with homicide if his criminal accomplice or an innocent citizen or civilian police officer is killed during efforts to stop the criminal or cause his arrest..

    I like the idea that any charges the State would like to levy against the women be brought against the shoplifter instead and added to his charges and sentencing..
    His actions brought about an undesired response by an innocent person..
    Nothing like using their logic to benefit the innocent… a ruling on her judgement aside..

  • robert December 20, 2015, 3:54 pm

    Reactions are never well thought out ever. That is the definition of a reaction. My big concern, had I been the Miss Duva-Rodriguez , would have been the fear that this thief would have seen me and was turning around to kill me with his car. I have trouble seeing and it all happened so fast.

    Could it have been possible Miss Duva-Rodriguez did not speak with an attorney and just clammed up with Law Enforcement? Or do you think Law Enforcement was there to help her?

    I mean, thinking it through for a couple of hours might have been something that would have made her realize it was self defense because the man was turning around and her firing her gun likely dissuaded him from doing that!

    Her biggest lesson in addition to not wanting to help anyone in the future again might be to learn to shut up when “the man” arrives blue lights and all.!

    What say ye, fellow readers?

  • d lyon December 19, 2015, 9:49 am

    Her actions were extremely reckless and showed lack of good judgement on her part. The last thing anyone wants is an untrained private citizen recklessly discharging their firearm in a public place. If she would have hit an innocent for the sake of someone stealing a cordless drill, that would have been a tragedy.

    I believe the judge should have suspended her cc for life to send a strong signal to all cc holders of their tremendous responsibility when they carry.

    • Alberto December 19, 2015, 11:43 am

      I’m sure no “reckless ” person will shoot an assailant going after you in a public place after reading the story.

      • Bill December 19, 2015, 9:17 pm

        If there was a way for me to know ahead of time who he is, I’d sure keep mine holstered until I was absolutely certain that his assailant definitely intended to behead him.

        Timing, of course, is everything.

    • Bill December 19, 2015, 9:16 pm

      I don’t know about where you come from, but in this country punishments are not intended to “send a signal” to others … they are to punish a specific crime and for no other purpose.

      Yeah, the Obama administration seems to have perverted that, too, but that’s the way the Constitution is written.

      • Captain Bob November 4, 2016, 12:40 pm

        I disagree that the punishment is not also intended to “send a signal.” The law that sets the punishment range is intended as a deterrent but the punishment rendered also can well be a deterrent when people see what they get if they do ___.

  • paladin December 19, 2015, 4:59 am

    I think it’s sad, y’all are talkin’ bull-s—; this’ll all be regular goin’s on in a short time. you jus wait and see…

  • JJ357 December 18, 2015, 10:39 pm

    She was WRONG. She still doesn’t get it, fine I will never help anyone again. Really?? You really said that. Shoplifting is bad and I have zero sympathy for that Sucker either, he also recklessly endangered people with his driving. Firearms are a last resort game changer, you don’t get a do over with life.

    • Captain Bob November 4, 2016, 12:47 pm

      I agree. A deadly weapon should never be used to protect PROPERTY only. It is to protect an innocent person’s life fromn death or serious bodily injury.
      If she had (foolishly) stood in the way of his car and could have been killed if he had run her over, then she could have shot at him with the excuse that her life was in danger BUT as she put herself in harm’s way, a jury might have disagreed.
      Overall, as frustrating as it might be, you can’t shoot at a fleeing person (even if they just stole your life savings) because they are not a deadly threat to you.

  • Larry Campbell December 18, 2015, 9:49 pm

    I think that we need more like her.

    • Captain Bob November 4, 2016, 12:49 pm

      Maybe in the movies but not in real life. She provided “ammo” for the anti-gunners and we sure don’t need to help those ***holes.

  • Nick December 18, 2015, 6:22 pm

    For sure. It was a blatant disregard for safety. Yes, her intentions are good, but c’mon- what’s her motive? That person wasn’t endangering anyone, just stealing something and trying to escape. If a stray round hit someone, then she could be looking at manslaughter or assault with a firearm and prison and not probation. She was lucky in this case.

  • Chris Baker December 18, 2015, 6:18 pm

    You cannot shoot a fleeing criminal. There’s no direct danger if they are running away and the only justification for shooting another person is if that person is either committing violence on another or about to do so. She got off light. She should spend those 18 months in jail. And her statement that she’ll never try to help anyone again is proof that she learned the wrong lesson from what happened.

  • pete December 18, 2015, 5:40 pm

    Wow, if that quote is accurate then I think she got off easy and her guns should be taken away. Her lesson was that she ‘should never help anyone again’? What an idiot. Her lesson is that she in no way had any business brandishing let alone firing a gun! She’s the reason why so many folks should reconsider the idea of carrying. The heat of the moment is when your decision-making should be at its best, not its worst. Training and a lot of calm common sense is a basic necessity BEFORE you own or carry.

  • Vince (again) December 18, 2015, 5:13 pm

    Ok, One more response and then I’ll quit. I do have a life. This woman is quite simply too dangerous to carry a concealed weapon. She has proven that.

    Robin…..really??? How will she protect herself? By not killing innocent people with a gun due to poor judgment, thus keeping herself out of jail. That’s how. That’s like asking how will a drunk driver who is a chronic repeat offender going to get to the grocery store because you took away his license to drive? Heloooooo?

    NATE….really, you too? As for your comment regarding how far away she was from the car or how many shots she took, that is a moot point. She should not have shot at the car in the first place! Enough facts to make that call in spades, dude. Can you not understand that technique does not matter when it’s a totally friggin stupid and irresponsible act you should NOT BE DOING?? Tell your wife it was ok that you slept with her best friend because it wasn’t love just physical…..I am sure she will say that makes it ok…..

  • AsgardBeast December 18, 2015, 4:31 pm

    After reading all the comments, there appear to be 3 different sides. The ones whom think the RAC (Responsibly Armed Citizen) was totally at fault and should be chastised. The ones who think the RAC was completely in the right. And the ones like me whom feel that the RAC did show a lack of good judgment, but don’t feel that it required such a harsh penalty.

    I just want to say that I can understand all of these opinions. However, there are a LOT of dynamics to this incident that should be considered.

    Should one method of “innocence endangerment” be subject to more discretion than any other?
    (In this case, is a questionably our of control, 4+ foot wide, speeding/accelerating, 3000+ pound vehicle, more dangerous than a questionably out of control, 5MM+, 100+ grain, 1000+ fps, ballistic projectile?)

    Should the obviously criminal activity and mindset of the perpetrator be treated as any less of a concern than the responsive activity and mindset of the individual who tries to thwart it?

    Is one only “allowed” to utilize their firearm ONLY in an instance where they directly fear for their OWN safety?
    What about the safety of others?
    What about the safety of property?
    Is it wrong to utilize a firearm if someone breaks into your house? My home being broken into doesn’t automatically ensure a threat to my safety.
    If it is acceptable to “assume” that your safety is in danger when there is no “evidence” to justify it?

    What is “safety”? Is “death” the measure to which we gauge “safety”. Harm to life or limb? That’s pretty generic isn’t it. Does a slap fall under the scope of a danger to “limb”? Does spanking a child warrant the child’s use of “deadly force” against the parent?

    I could go on for quite some time, but in truth, the only real questions here are; Who are YOU? What right do YOU have to judge ANYONE else?, Is the “law” always “right”?, WHAT is defined as “wrong”, of everyone involved, who WAS “wrong”?, and is any one “wrong” worse than another?.

    While I have my opinion, I don’t profess to be god, judge, jury, nor executioner of any other individual. But I will say, in the instance that ANYONE attempts to violate my life, the lives of my family or friends, my property, my freedom, or my ability to exercise the free will to retain and maintain any one of them, I recognize that as a direct threat to my way of life, and I will use ANY means available to me to defend against that violation.

    In this instance, none of these “violations” had occurred toward the RAC. So, although I do NOT justify her choice to utilize a firearm in this instance. I do not feel that by doing so she was NOT inducing any greater threat to anyone else’s “rights” than the perpetrator whom instigated the situation to begin with, and her actions (even if they were ill advised) were a direct result of the perpetrators actions.

    As far as that goes, I do support the idea that if ANYONE was to be held accountable for any injuries or loss that occurred from the incident. The responsibility and compensation should be place solely on the criminal whom chose to violate rights, and perpetrated the event to begin with.

    If we quit attempting to create criminals and instead focus on persecuting those that are already choosing to be, maybe we might stand a chance at curbing the predisposition of individuals whom choose to “play the odds” at criminal activity.

    • Tom July 9, 2016, 12:51 pm

      Although very articulate, opinions do not fly in the face of law. Had the woman hit and innocent bystander, or the car was cause to divert into people as a direct result of her actions,… to think that her responsibility should be directed to the criminal simply because “he initiated the incident by choosing to break the law”,.. is open to egregious errors. By that thinking,.. regardless of the level of reaction ( force ) used by the responding gun owner, any collateral damage would solely be on the shoulders of the criminal. So since you have a very lengthy and version of the opinions in this that are certainly “hypothetical”,…. What if the responding shooter chose a different, yet significantly larger means to deliver the force?? A fully automatic firearm with ultra high capacity?? Perhaps a grenade? A small rocket launcher? As the collateral damage increases directly proportional to the amount of the force,.. does it still fall on the initial perp to take all heat from the damage that may occur? Just curious if you have a point that you would draw the line.

  • Bob December 18, 2015, 2:58 pm

    She should have her permit suspended and be ordered to attend a refresher course on the do’s and don’ts of concealed carry. Her judgement was very poor in this circumstance.

  • rm December 18, 2015, 1:35 pm

    Not so long ago she would have been congratulated for a public service . Then again not long ago you wouldn’t have a shoplifter speeding away endangering many lives .

  • RAPTOR555 December 18, 2015, 1:30 pm

    The sentence is what it is and my opinion on that makes no difference at this point. She made a very big mistake and is very fortunate to have dodged jail time. I’m not sure if she should ever get a CCW permit again having shown she is irresponsible.

  • D.Tros December 18, 2015, 12:25 pm

    To stop a shoplifter? She doesn’t deserve to have a concealed carry license. She is a danger to the public. Most likely the reason she got off easy is because she is a woman and so is the judge.

    • Bill December 19, 2015, 9:09 pm

      Yeah, funny how that article didn’t mention that the “shoplifter” was being pursued by the security guard who was screaming for help, so, rather than run for his own vehicle, the robber jumped into an occupied car as it crawled by and this woman had the presence of mind, not to mention the good marksmanship, to shoot out the tires rather than risk shooting into the body of the vehicle and injuring the innocent occupants.

      It didn’t mention that she was shooting from 37 feet away with a parked (and unoccupied) car as the back up or that she just happened to be carrying that day because she was on her way home from practicing for an IPSA match and needed more 1×2’s for target uprights because the woman she was teaching likes to shoot the uprights to relax at the end of the day.

      Nope … the article didn’t mention any of that.

  • Victor December 18, 2015, 11:37 am


    • Bill December 19, 2015, 8:59 pm

      Actually, your use of all-caps gave them more ammunition than anything this woman did.

      She hit her target. You can’t even identify yours.

  • CKS December 18, 2015, 11:25 am

    She is a prime example why training should be obtained before you carry. People are people and far from perfect. Should she continue to carry she should seek out a good safety and use class.

    • Bill December 19, 2015, 8:57 pm

      In Michigan, she got more training than I did where I am. Apparently it wasn’t of especially high quality, but she jumped through more hoops.

      Looking at the Second Amendment I can’t seem to find a training requirement. Perhaps you could help me out with that?

      Let those who cry because her training didn’t include scenario based shoot/don’t shoot simulations open up their wallets … I’d like some of that training, too.

  • Nick December 18, 2015, 10:54 am

    1st question: Do I *have* to shoot? (immediate threat of death or GBH to me or someone I am will to risk everything for)
    2nd question: Can I make the shot safely? (foreground/background, distance, size of target, my current skill level)

    If the answer to the first question isn’t YES, there is no reason to even look at the second question. If the answers to both are not yes, then I am not shooting.

    Many times things happen very fast. While at a gas station saw a guy looking “hinky” around a car at the pumps ~25 yards away from me. He gets into the car as a woman boils out of the store behind me screaming, “No, no, my babies are in the car!” He peals out, driving toward me and her, making a U- turn and driving away. It might have been justifiable to shoot, but it sure wasn’t safe. Fortunately, the 10 year old girl grabbed her 1.5 year old little sister and bailed while he was screaching around the turn. They got some road rash and a darned scary experience, but they were not taken away with him and the car.

  • Rex Dickerson December 18, 2015, 10:46 am

    I would have preferred the judge ban her from carrying concealed for life. Poor judgement to say the least. What if she had wounded or killed a pedestrian in the parking lot? Or an occupant in the fleeing car or another car? The facts don’t reveal whether the shoplifter was armed but clearly he/her did not exit the store with guns blazing. Her vigilantism was completely and utterly irresponsible.

    • Bill December 19, 2015, 8:52 pm

      The facts also do not reveal if the security cop was screaming for help or if the bad guy was carjacking his way out of town by taking the first car driving by.

      The plain truth of the matter is that she shot at the car to stop a robbery, didn’t hit anyone else, got clobbered in court and is (mis?)quoted as being pissed about the slapping around she got.

      None of the alleged policemen commenting in here is worth stepping in.

  • AK December 18, 2015, 10:31 am

    Talk about stupid! It took her this long to learn no good deed goes unpunished.
    A CC permit is for you help yourself not some retail monkey who makes 40-70K a year

  • Robin Grimm December 18, 2015, 10:22 am

    The judge was right but they should not have taken her right to carry off of her . How does she protect herself now?

  • William stewart December 18, 2015, 10:00 am

    To PK
    why don’t you put your mouth in this forum by listing you name as I do…..crooks that rob a store….and a by stander is killed…..they are all guilty of MURDER!…..even the getaway driver……it’s the criminal that begins the crime…..believe me if more people just shot criminals in the act and the stories were on all news networks…..after a few months of criminals seen on TV laying on a bloody sidewalk things would change….you liberals are nothing but winers….first you wine the cops aren’t doing enough….then you bitch and twitch if they kill a few people brandishing weapons in the open….”you killed my Shanton….he was a good boy he only been arrested foteen times…..my 20 year old baby is gone and you killed him Mr Policeman” order is necessary and good manners were our first laws……paying respect in the mornings at school to the flag is part of our cultural……when I was 9 year old fift grader the Pennsylvania State Troopers came to our class rooms and spoke with us about our civic responsibilities……they brought pictures of crime scenes…..and what drunk drivers can do to a family…..saw the after math of what destructive parents in combination with alcohol and drugs…..get your head out of your donkey and face realty…..the more you baby punish young men and women…..cause once the hair starts to grow between your legs caused by hormonal changes you have crossed the threshold to becoming an adult…..el bet a young adult…..but one has to start some where it usually once one is thirteen…..the Jewish people got it right once you have your bar misvha you are no longer a child and won’t be treated as such. I was born before world two and believe me we had a great society…..one awoke and got busy and any adult older than you would let you know if you got out of line…..there were bullies but they usually got their ass kicked by a older man…..if you were on relief you were shunned as well you should be…..hunger is a motivating force……hobos were a plenty in those days….my Grandfathers farm had a rail line going across the farm and they would beg food….he would have them fed….after they worked for their supper…..they were motivated….but most of these men were lazy and shiftless…..my Dad and Uncles all carried pistols…..they were all combat vets and were very assertive and could get aggressive in a heart beat…..people are still the same as they were two hundred years ago….I have the diaries of many of my ancestors and all relay many stories pertaining to misbehavior of others….strangers were treated with careful scrutiny……
    Stu Stewart

  • WillieNAz December 18, 2015, 9:48 am

    In the good old days her actions would have been welcomed, but by today’s standards she acted irresponsibly. A lot of us still carry memories of western tv shows and think killing the bad guy is the goal. Even though society would be better off if more of them were 6 feet under, we have to abide by the “norms” of an abnormal society that believes gun carry is only for self defense. A fleeing robber is not necessarily a threat. If they turn to shoot at you then have a field day, otherwise keep yourself out of jail. If the bad guy hurts someone who isn’t carrying a gun, it won’t be your fault it will be all those libtards out there writing the laws and nodding gleefully at the talking heads on the news talking about those evil guns. In this particular case I think the judge in these evil times we live in gave her a just reprimand. She needs some kind of education on how to be a acceptable carrier in today’s society, but I don’t think there is such a course that will sink into her thick noggin. If there was then the judge should have made her take those classes.

  • 3rdAFCreawChief December 18, 2015, 9:35 am

    Obviously she was not instructed properly, but I believe sge was sleeping during the class.

    • Bill December 19, 2015, 8:46 pm

      Make up your mind.

  • Nate December 18, 2015, 9:31 am

    A lot of opinions for what little information there is.
    Did she fire once at a tire from 3′ away? Did she fire multiple times from 50 yards as the car sped away?
    Without more facts to judge, most of you should keep your mouths shut.

    • Bill December 19, 2015, 8:45 pm

      Nate, Nate, Nate … If I wasn’t a guy, I’d offer to have your children! I’ve been reading this thread for a couple hours and I’ve seen next to no intelligence here. Guys claiming to have 28 years LEO experience passing judgment on the trivial amount of information given.

      Frankly, I think if that person has 28 years LEO experience it’s because the criminals realized what an asset he was.

  • The Colonel December 18, 2015, 9:27 am

    “Capital punishment” for shoplifting? Endangering everyone around the store with spray and pray shooting. She SHOULD lose her carry permit.

    • Bill December 19, 2015, 8:42 pm

      And you should take a remedial reading class. Boron.

  • MC December 18, 2015, 9:17 am

    She tried to stop a criminal in the community and had a gun to try and help without injuring anybody. If she used her car and rammed his until it was paralyzed would that be that much different? I don’t blame her for feeling overly punished. It could be more dangerous at a shooting range with multiple people shooting guns in close proximity than her shooting 1 round at a tire outside. I’ve seen plenty of beginners at the range waving loaded guns in other directions besides down range! Just as someone else stated here, I bet the true criminal got a slap on the wrist and our justice system felt sorry for him and let him go out to do more crimes but now with a bigger ‘I have a right to do what I do attitude’! Meh!

  • Bayard December 18, 2015, 9:16 am

    The punishment was too light, she should serve prison time and never be allowed to hold a cwp again. She did not have good intentions either. She has a vigilante mentality and a random shoplifter should not be shot dead. Her comment about never helping anyone again shows a child like mentality.

    • Bill December 19, 2015, 8:41 pm

      Gawd you are a judgmental (individual of diminished mental capacity) … rhymes with “plick”.

      The anti-gunners can just stay home this week … cause you guys are out in force.

      Geez … no wonder the Democrats think they can pull so much baloney … with folks like what I am reading here manning the gates, they CAN. Makes me ashamed to have an R behind my name on my voter ID card. Sad … just really, really sad.

    • Dusty December 23, 2015, 4:50 am

      FYI Bill- the way it works is what did she know at the time she fired, and what was “reasonable” conduct. All the woulda, coulda, shoulda nonsense is just plain noise. If she didn’t ‘reasonably’ KNOW a (non property…) FELONY will occur, is occurring, or has just occurred- there is no defense for employing deadly force against anyone. And FYI- shooting into a moving vehicle is really not very likely to a.) Stop it; b.) Hit ‘anyone’ in it; and c.) If it does hit the driver, not just ‘someone’… what happens then? maybe it keeps going until it hits something or someone and stops- like someone’s wife and infant.

  • ToddB December 18, 2015, 9:09 am

    Its odd to see some saying, it was to much punishment. But I will guess their the ones who say ANY form of gun control is wrong, there is no circumstance that gun ownership should be denied, the world is black and white. Unfortunately the world is in color. We all know people who should be allowed to use power tools much less a gun.

    Lets look at this case. Since she was carrying concealed, and not exactly a big girl, its probably safe to say she has some sort of small pocket gun. It never said in the news what she was carrying, but probably safe to say something small, light, and easy to carry. Those are generally not target guns. Yet she was trying to shoot out the tires of a moving car across a parking lot. A challenge to most with a proper target gun, much less without the added adrenaline. So a shot she should never have attempted, as said, she was more likely to hit bystanders than the tire. Think before you act.

    And its not like she was trying to stop bank robbers or rapists, but shoplifters. Most stores won’t even let their employees go after shop lifters as the risk is greater than the loss. So not something the law would allow you to shot someone over. And you generally get in more trouble shooting at a car or house than a person, due to the unknown and unintended consequences. Think before you act.

    And then there was the lesson she learned, not that she was stupid for trying to shoot out the tires of somebody shoplifting, but that she should just never help anybody again. The lesson was, think before you act. Not a strong suit for many in the world. My ex wanted to carry a gun, I put it off, made excuses, etc. Why? Because she should not carry a gun. If she had one, it was very unlikely she would have what it took to use it. So more likely to be used on her. And she was a bit scatter brained, so her with a loaded gun all the time was just not a very good idea. I keep all mine locked up due to a 7 yo in the house, she would not be so responsible.

    • Bill December 19, 2015, 8:36 pm

      “Across the parking lot” … and just exactly how far is that?

      You are running your mouth with nothing but supposition for fuel.

      Look, stop whining about what she was quoted as saying until you have some context to put her words into. Was that even an accurate quote? Don’t go there because you DO NOT KNOW the answer.

      Stop trying to guess what she was carrying … for all you know she had just come from the range, scored well and had a competition firearm in her purse.

      Maybe it was a mouse gun … maybe it was a 1911 Commander. You simply don’t know.

      Maybe YOUR nerves would have been singing with adrenaline … maybe she was dead calm. Again, you are just guessing what was going through the mind of a total stranger. It’s called “projection” and is one of the things that really irk us when the anti-gunners do it to us. It’s NOT okay for US to do it to US, either. Cut it out.

      As I mentioned above .. the security cop WAS in pursuit and likely hollering for help. Beyond that, in all the commotion it wasn’t mentioned whether the thief was getting into their own car or hijacking one as it went slowly by looking for a parking spot near the door. If so, this just became a kidnapping and a couple other felonies.

      Sorry your ex was such an air head. Or were you just a lousy instructor? It’s hard to tell sometimes. At any rate, you guys got a divorce, so that worked out okay.

      My wife, at first, wouldn’t shoot a B27. But talking with her and working up from other targets over the period of a year or so has her determined to make quick work of any threat … and she now has the mad skillz to back that up. The past few months, the targets have had faces of individuals who jacked us around (600 miles away). She doesn’t land them all … but she lands more than I do.

      Sorry about your wife … mine is catching on pretty good.

  • parnote December 18, 2015, 8:59 am

    “I tried to help, and I learned my lesson that I will never help anybody again,” she told the media.

    That alone tells us all that she hasn’t learned anything from this event. She’s rejecting the taking of any responsibility to follow the CCW laws of her jurisdiction. Why not just fess up and admit that she must have slept through that portion of her CCW class? She already admitted to using poor judgement, but seems unwilling to learn from that episode.

    • Bill December 19, 2015, 8:13 pm

      It wasn’t all that long ago (within, if memory serves, the past month) that BFA posted an article saying pretty much exactly what this woman just said. So, is Buckeye Firearms Association wrong, too?

  • jyuzamas December 18, 2015, 8:54 am

    Yes she broke the law. Does that mean the laws are right? Does that mean the thiefs, rapest and robers have more right to get out of every law out there with there free attorney and a judge that feels sorry for every crook. These shop lifters are the same trash breaking into your cars at night, selling and using drugs on your streets and would stab or shoot you for $5.00.

    • Chris Baker December 18, 2015, 6:41 pm

      If they try to rape you or kill you or your family and you catch them as they attempt the crime, shoot them. If they are fleeing you are committing a crime if you shoot them.

      • Bill December 19, 2015, 8:11 pm

        You were okay until you got to the fleeing part. That varies by jurisdiction.

        And that points out the problem of long-distance quarterbacking a shooting we did not see.

        A woman saw a crime being committed, used her firearm and the judge ruled she was wrong. That much we know. And we know nothing beyond that.

  • Dan December 18, 2015, 8:52 am

    This may be an unpopular opinion among a lot of gun owners, and I do understand the “slippery slope” aspect, but this incident illustrates why stringent screening should be required for instructors and anyone else involved in the permitting process to insure that morons like this are identified and eliminated from consideration. Incidents like this put all of us in danger of losing the right to carry firearms. Obviously the woman is either mentally ill, or a complete moron – either of which should have been identified during the training, testing, or permitting process. Imagine what would have happened if one of her bullets had ricocheted off the pavement and killed an innocent bystander – or another permit holder is loading lumber hears a bullet whiz past his head, looks up and sees the woman pointing her gun in his direction, pulls his own firearm, and shoots her dead. Politicians would be scrambling to be the first to introduce legislation to “prevent” this type of tragic mayhem! Legislation now on our terms, or legislation later, on theirs!

    • Bill December 19, 2015, 8:08 pm

      It might well be that the problem was actually the instructor.

      My first instructors (a husband and wife team), fully vetted by the state, were such airheads that I opted to re-take the course from another instructor and repeat not only the course, but the payments.

  • Tim December 18, 2015, 8:52 am

    Yes it fits the crime and had she actually hit the bad guy she would be sporting an orange jump suit and rightly so. As a CCW holder she should have known that you can only fire you weapon when your life is in danger or someone else’s is. Her CCW license should have been revoked permanently ! Her words at her sentencing indicates she’s not exactly the sharpest crayon in the box!

    • Bill December 19, 2015, 8:03 pm

      Which car did the bad guy try to drive off?

      If he was pressed for time because the store dick was chasing him (likely against store policy … but there he was in pursuit in the parking lot — the story we have been given establishes that much, at least) and decided to carjack instead of drop the loot and sprint for his own car, then the shooting would meet the standards if the car was occupied at the time he jumped into it.


  • Rick December 18, 2015, 8:29 am

    Education is key….

  • Miles December 18, 2015, 7:41 am

    This same woman with a clean shot probably wouldnt have tried to stop a kidnapper with a child bcause she obviously isnt proficient in her skill set either with a call like that

  • Miles December 18, 2015, 7:41 am

    This same woman with a clean shot probably wouldnt have tried to stop a kidnapper with a child bcause she obviously isnt proficient in her skill set either with a call like that

    • Bill December 19, 2015, 7:59 pm

      You should get a job with the carnival … it’s a rare person who can read minds the way you do. Do you guess weights, too?

  • Vince December 18, 2015, 7:16 am

    Life isn’t fair. Responsible citizens who carry like myself are held to a higher standard. The good guys always seem to be handicapped by rules that no one else plays by and criminals don’t follow the law like we do.That’s just the way it is. People like this woman make it even harder. There are going to be idiots who carry guns. When they screw up they need to be held accountable just like she was. If I were the judge in this case and I heard her comments I would be tempted to revoke her carry permit permanently. There is a crisis in this country, and that is the total lack of personal responsibility for your actions. All she did was make excuses that she was “just trying to help” instead of saying what she should’ve said, which was “I made a mistake I’m sorry, and I will try to do better in the future.” Anyone who’s commenting on the story about how her sentence was too harsh, think for a second how you would feel if your wife or your children were in that parking lot that day and one of her stray bullets killed them. Now your thinking like that judge, looks a little different now doesn’t it?

    • griffen December 18, 2015, 8:24 am

      Outstanding reply, spoken like a person with much common sense and wisdom, as a 28yr FED LEO I can tell you that you ARE responsible for negligent discharge of a firearm in the public, period. It doesn’t matter if you are a CCW holder or an open carry devotee, it is your responsibility to be aware of the totality of circumstances and account for your actions. I don’t believe this idiot was any less trained than anyone else who obtains a ccw, but I believe based on her remarks after the sentence that she had a “power” complex and didn’t use common sense when she fired into that vehicle, hell, do people even know how many times law enforcement checks themselves from shooting into vehicles for fear of endangering innocent peoples lives with stray bullets or over-penetration? If we weren’t and didn’t try to exercise sound judgement before discharging a firearm, then there would be vehicle shootings every hour on the hour based on the traffic stops and scene flees that LEOs are subject to on an hourly basis. No one, including law enforcement is above the law, espcially now in this environment when a few assholes have made the public weary and totally mistrusting of law enforcement in general. Btw, I’m totally pro-2nd amendement and I beleive well-trained citizens should be allowed to have firearms to protect themselves and their loved ones, but remember with that right comes responsibility and even more important, common damn sense.

    • Bill December 19, 2015, 7:58 pm

      There were stray bullets? That’s not what the article I read indicated. Sounded to me like she fired a very few rounds and landed all of them. That’s pretty good … but then, ordinary citizens usually land a higher percentage and incur less collateral damage than cops so that’s to be expected. (Yeah, I got numbers for that.)

      Most likely I wouldn’t have shot. Most of us wouldn’t have. But imagine that the person jumping into that vehicle was not just shoplifting but, with the security cop on their tail and their own vehicle too far away to reach, carjacking … and your wife or kids were in that car.

      Now, how do you feel about her choice to shoot at the tires?

      I see longtime cops who have no more information than I have ripping this woman “a new one”. They don’t have enough information to make that call. Come back when you have a link to the actual court proceedings and odds are we’ll both find reversible error.

      We weren’t there and the media tend to leave out facts which don’t fit their narrative. DA’s also ignore whatever they feel won’t help them get a conviction or fit their re-election bid. Judges are elected by how well they fit into the political machine, not by how smart or wise they might be. Maybe the Judge is correct and possessed of the wisdom of a modern day Solomon … maybe she’s just looking for a reliable income to get away from a practice that was a financial train wreck. Hel(l), maybe she’s just looking for some time in public service to skip out on her college debt. What is it … 6 years and she can walk away from the whole thing?

      It appears that this woman didn’t have enough facts to justify a shooting … but I’m just as certain that we don’t have enough facts to justify a lynching.

  • Bob Novak December 18, 2015, 7:15 am

    As CPL holder I know I’m responsible for every round that leaves my barrel. This woman didn’t think things through. She had to make a split second decision, I don’t think this is true. She saw the suspect fleeing, an employee chasing after them, the thief getting into the car, start the car, back up out of the parking space (I’m just assuming this part), then start to drive away before she shot. This is not a split second decision. She deserves the probation, revoke of her CPL. Until she retakes the requirements to obtain another one, but to wait until 2023, that’s bullcrap.

    • Bill December 19, 2015, 7:37 pm

      Agreed. She needs to take a time out and put on a fresh set of training wheels … but 8 years IS excessive. She hit her target, so the risk to by-standers was minimal. Unfortunately, she should not have shot at all … not with the information she actually had available to her.

      I’m guessing that she had perhaps 2 seconds of visual data to work with and another second or so to draw and shoot. We don’t know how close to the car the thief was when the chase caught her attention so the actual window of information might have been quite small. What she didn’t have was the training needed for this event and she has seen her decision to help another (the security officer) blow up in her face because she couldn’t divorce the fact from the excitement. (Was the security cop, possibly wearing a blue uniform (they love to dress up like cops) and shouting “Stop him! Somebody help me stop him!”? We don’t know.)

      The fact is, she didn’t actually have enough information to make a proper decision to shoot and that is why she is in deep do-do with a bunch of cretins calling for her neck today.

      Yep … having a CCL is a serious matter so she should have her wrists slapped. But 8 years is excessive.

      • MB December 23, 2015, 3:16 pm

        Bill, you have posted nearly a dozen times while scrolling down this board. Do you have a day job?

        The idea that you clearly aren’t willing to hold people responsible for their actions is disturbing. This woman fired rounds from a pistol into a parking lot open to the public. You say she should receive training and that she will have learned her lesson.

        Screw that. Some mistakes you don’t get to come bad from. Reckless discharge of a firearm is definitely one of those mistakes. Does it suck for her not being able to carry a pistol? Sure. Is that the worst thing that came out of this? Not by a long shot.

        Seriously, you seem perfectly sure of your opinion on everything. What would your stance be if she had shot someone in the parking lot? Make her write, “I won’t shoot at fleeing shoplifters” 100 times on a chalkboard?

        I hope you don’t have kids, because I’d hate to see what they turned out like if you are truly this lenient…

  • Lee December 18, 2015, 7:04 am

    I agree with the judge. Too many people think that just because they have a carry permit that it is a license to shoot at will.

    • Bill December 19, 2015, 7:23 pm

      Really? Got some hard numbers to support your fantasy?

  • Jackpine December 18, 2015, 6:49 am

    “…I will never help anybody again.” Trying to make the judge feel guilty. How about putting on the big boy pants and vowing to never be stupid again, instead?

  • JT December 18, 2015, 6:29 am

    Those of you who think this woman’s sentence is too harsh need to seriously rethink your position. THIS IS THE LAST TYPE OF PERSON I’D WANT CARRYING A GUN IN PUBLIC. Not only because of her reckless disregard of the law and public safety, but also because she furthers the incorrect stereotype pushed by the left of the vigilantly, wreckless, wild-west concealed carry permit holder. If just 10% of permit holders had this woman’s same attitude, we’d have no concealed carry, period. She’s extremely lucky she didn’t hit anyone in that parking lot. If she had, can you imagine the outcry from the left? People like this give the gun-control crowd all of the ammunition they need to further their agenda and enact new laws restricting our rights. We’ve come a long way in this country regarding concealed carry over the past few decades. I personally don’t care to have my rights put in jeopardy by a moron who obviously doesn’t understand when it’s appropriate to use a firearm, and judging by her statement after sentencing, still doesn’t understand that what she did was wrong. Frankly, with her attitude, I personally believe the penalty she received was not harsh enough.

    • Gregory Romeu December 18, 2015, 9:07 am

      Fully concur with your statement.

    • RJFixer December 18, 2015, 9:41 am

      Completely agree and well said. She doesn’t even seem to remember the very basic first rules of firearm usage, like being responsible for background of the shot she takes? Did she seriously think she had control over where the bullet might end up?

    • Bill December 19, 2015, 7:22 pm

      “Frankly, with her attitude, I personally believe the penalty she received was not harsh enough.”

      Frankly, with your attitude, I’m glad that you do not speak for me. Your arrogance and thunder speaks volumes about you … and none of it good.

      This is not Internet bluster … you and I would NOT get along in person. I can promise you that because I would not even try until you toned things down by at least half. And you won’t. Like this woman, you don’t think you’ve done anything wrong.

      But, my God, the damage you would do at your keyboard were it in your power.

  • David December 18, 2015, 5:52 am

    It seems to me that the punishment could have been far more appropriate and a learning opportunity. I agree with the 18 months probation since there was no malice, merely a poor choice, and fortunately no injuries or worse. However, as it is clear that she did not understand the requirement for circumstances authorizing use of deadly force, rather than just revoking her permit, the judge should have required her to attend more training over the 18 month probation. Just as defendants of crimes from drunk driving to domestic violence are sentenced to court ordered training/counseling, she should have been required to learn why she made the mistake and how to avoid it in the future. Then she could be granted a permit after her training, at some point or another. I won’t comment on her final words other than to say a 5th grade “sour grapes” comment was pretty pathetic.

  • John December 18, 2015, 5:39 am

    She make a bad decision, she admitted it….if a cop had done the same thing what would his punishment have been? Her carry card should just be revoked for the time of her probation, and then she should be required to re-take the class to learn when to use her weapon. 2023 is too long…everyone deserves a second chance….

    • JP December 18, 2015, 8:04 am

      In most states it is against policy to fire at a moving vehicle unless it is to prevent loss of life.

      • Bill December 19, 2015, 7:06 pm

        Policy is not necessarily law. It is WalMart policy to ask to see my receipt as I leave the store. I have yet to comply. If they want to accuse me of theft, they need to make an arrest. If they make the arrest and are wrong (I NEVER steal), then I end up with an even fatter bank account than before I walked in to the store.

        Win-win, from my viewpoint. Policy … even police department policy … is not law. Only the law is law.

  • Stefan Smythe December 18, 2015, 4:51 am

    I heard that in Texas, if somebody is stealing your car in front of your house you can kill him as he drives away.

    • Gregory Romeu December 18, 2015, 8:56 am

      I also heard that little spacemen like peanut butter! Your rumor is WRONG!

      • Randy December 18, 2015, 10:39 am

        You have the right to defend your life AND property—– the ” Castle ” doctorine

      • Mitch December 18, 2015, 1:22 pm

        YOU are the one who is mistaken. Gregory…… Texas law reads:
        PC §9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE’S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.
        (b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:
        (1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or
        (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
        PC §9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
        (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
        (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
        (A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
        (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
        (3) he reasonably believes that:
        (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
        (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

  • W E Stewart December 18, 2015, 4:30 am

    The crook is responsible….once she shot at a fleeing felon anything that happened after that is on the fleeing felon not the lady attempting uphold the law and stop the sphincter muscle crook……once a criminal acts …..his actions if criminal….are where the damages/responsibilities will lie if there is collateral consequences because of his/her lawful behavior…..don’t try to blame the Good Samaritan card carrying gun totin citizen…..punish the criminal not the good gun totin samariton.
    Stu Stewart
    These so called legal beavers are full of shit…..who caused the problem……elect Donald Trump

    • pk December 18, 2015, 8:10 am

      So you are saying that she is judge and jury and her opinion makes the alleged thief guilty?
      No wonder some people want to restrict gun carry!
      You my friend need some education.

      • Brandon December 18, 2015, 9:22 am

        W E Stewart is clearly a troll. Just ignore it.

    • Frank December 18, 2015, 8:35 am

      If that is what you believe, probably you shouldn’t be carrying either. To be honest, this reads like you are trolling.

    • Gregory Romeu December 18, 2015, 8:54 am

      She was WRONG. From the very beginning of the 2nd Amendment all the way through to her sentencing and beyond to 2023. SHE WAS WRONG! The items stolen from the store posed NO IMMINENT THREAT to her or anybody around her. SHE WAS WRONG! The fleeing scumbag is a criminal, however, there is NO EVIDENCE the scumbag was a FELON. Even IF the scumbag was a FELON, it was NOT a LIFE AND DEATH SCENARIO. SHE WAS WRONG! I am a United States Marine and have carried a fun for going on 40 years and MY BEST DAY IS WHEN THAT GUN NEVER COMES OUT OF THE HOLSTER! SHE WAS WRONG! I am also a Full Automatic Machinegun Range Safety Officer, SHE WAS WRONG! I am also an NRA Range Safety Officer, SHE WAS WRONG! There is BO EXCUSE for poor judgement when it comes to firearms. NONE! NADA! ZIP!

      • Archangel December 18, 2015, 11:19 am

        What Gregory Romeu said, at every level, on every point (spelling mistakes not included).

    • Bayard December 18, 2015, 9:24 am

      You and your comment represent the Donald Trump crowd well. Shoplifting is not necessarily a felony and its illegal to shoot a fleeing suspect at any rate. It has been for decades.

    • Archangel December 18, 2015, 11:12 am

      “The crook is responsible….once she shot at a fleeing felon anything that happened after that is on the fleeing felon not the lady attempting uphold the law”
      Shoplifting is not a Felony, and there was no risk of life so deadly force is not authorized.
      She made a HUGE STUPID mistake in judgment and is not safe with a firearm.
      She could have easily killed an innocent bystander, and if that bystander was your spouse or child you might think differently about blaming the shoplifter, or the overzealous gunslinger.

    • Bill December 19, 2015, 7:00 pm

      The crime did not rise to the level of a felony. I stopped reading your post beyond that word.

  • David December 18, 2015, 3:51 am

    If your not on camera, leave quickly.

  • William December 18, 2015, 3:26 am

    She got off easy imo. Luckily she is as poor a shot as she is at decision making. And she didn’t learn her lesson…her quote on never helping anyone again shows that. Reckless handling of firearms by licensed carriers hurts all who carry concealed. Stupid lady.

  • Darryl December 18, 2015, 3:25 am

    No one was harmed? Anyone who holds a CPL was harmed by this idiots actions. This is what the anti gunners live for…thanks lady you should never ever be able to handle a gun again. I think she got off easy.

    • Rex December 18, 2015, 10:32 am

      Agree 100%. Poor judgement. What if she had wounded or killed an occupant in the car? Or someone in another car or a pedestrian in the parking lot? Her actions reflect badly on all of us who carry. I would have preferred she be banned from concealed carry for lfe.

    • Bryan December 18, 2015, 12:24 pm

      Darryl — I agree that her actions could (and very well may still) help anti-gunners chip away at the right to carry concealed. The number of new CCW holders is expanding rapidly throughout the United States, and that scares the anti-gun crowd, since licensed carry is the ultimate buy-in to support of the Second Amendment: Far more than just having a rifle in the closet, the decision to carry concealed is also a decision to take personal responsibility. After they’ve finished with the “gun show loophole” and “no-fly list” restrictions, I fully expect the anti-gunners to go after CCW permits next.

      I have a Michigan CPL (Concealed Pistol License) and the rules are very clear: Use of a firearm is restricted to cases of immediate threat of death or bodily harm to yourself or another person. Firing on a fleeing car does not live up to that standard. Say what you will about whether or not that rule is too restrictive — other states, such as Texas, have different rules — but as long as you have a Michigan CPL, you have to accept those rules.

    • Bill December 19, 2015, 6:59 pm

      Tell you what, Darryl … you don’t hold this woman responsible for what the anti-gun industry was going to say anyways and I won’t call you a jerk.

      Stiff penalties for minor errors are what feeds the anti-gun lobby. She aimed at the tires. Reading between the lines it appears that she hit them. She stopped the robber. She upheld the laws regarding theft.

      Good job … except that this is not what the very fickle law wants us to do … it wants us to stand idly by so the anti-gunners can once again say “See … CCL didn’t make a difference.”

      If we stop a mass shooting after the first shots are fired but before there are any fatalities, there was no mass shooting and having a CCL on premises didn’t matter. If we DON’T stop a mass shooting until after there are four victims, there was a mass shooting and having a CCL on premises didn’t matter. In the first instance, we saved
      20 lives and it didn’t matter. In the second instance we saved 16 … and it still didn’t matter.

      Stop worrying what those bung-holes are going to say and DO NOT LET THEM STOP YOU from doing what is right: they are domestic terrorists … do not let them win.

      We can walk across water and the anti-gunners would claim that we couldn’t swim, were arrogant and broke environmental laws for failing to file an impact statement and international rules of navigation on the high seas because we didn’t have the proper navigational lights jammed up our butts. Or we could drown … and they would make the exact same claims, but drop the navigation light charges.

      And now she’s bankrupt, saddled with a criminal record and stripped of her Constitutionally guaranteed right of self defense for 10 years. Yeah … that’ll get Bloomies Retards off our backs.


      This woman no more represents all CCL holders than you do … and you certainly don’t represent me.

  • Joe December 18, 2015, 3:02 am

    She made the wrong decision. She is not a sworn law enforcement officer, and her life nor anyone else’s was in danger. She shouldn’t have fired the weapon. She could have killed an innocent bystander.

    • joe December 18, 2015, 9:01 am

      So sworn law enforcement officers are allowed to make the wrong decision and endanger other people’s lives?

      • Texan December 18, 2015, 2:18 pm

        Sworn officer makes wrong decision gets to go on PAID admin leave for a few weeks and business as usual afterward. Civilians do not have that privilege.

    • MB December 23, 2015, 2:57 pm

      I agree completely with Joe.
      Day one learning to hunt was, “always know what’s beyond your target”. This lady is extremely lucky that she didn’t kill an innocent bystander.
      I am frightened by how many idiots lurk on this site who think it perfectly fine to fire on a fleeing shoplifter at a busy public store! If someone struck one of my loved ones with an errant bullet whilst “helping” a major box store corporation enforce their security, they’ll need to defend themselves from me…
      We don’t need marginally trained CCL holders shooting bad guys. We sure as hell need to push for harsher sentencing.

      In the meantime, if someone if hurting you or another person… smoke em if you got em…

  • Dennis December 16, 2015, 8:24 am

    From what I understand, nobody was injured from this shooting. The shooter showed poor judgment but the penalty she is paying is too harsh. How does her sentence compare to the scumbags who ripped off the store? I bet they got off with a slap on the wrist from the judge.

    • Daniel December 18, 2015, 6:10 am

      She didn’t learn her lesson based on what she said to reporters after the trial. She’s an idiot and needs to spend hours with trainers learning how to not be an idiot with a firearm

      • DutchK9 December 18, 2015, 12:37 pm

        I agree with Daniel, she didn’t learn anything. This seems to be the flaw with concealed carry training, the lack of shoot dont shoot training. At least in my state that is how it is. Instead of just punching paper, they need to be put through proper shooting senerios on simulators prior to receiving a carry permit. I have been through hours of such training with sims, paint, and live fire and it makes a huge difference in how you body reacts to a stressfull situation. When I was involved with my on duty shooting, my instincts took over because I was put through the same type of situation through training countless times. I think concealed carry is a great thing and everyong should have the right to protect themselves, but this one bad apple just like the one bad cop, puts a black eye on everyone. If she would of had better training, then she would have known a retail theft is not means to discharge a firearm at somebody. Hell back in the day they had to be at least a fleeing felon. She didnt even have that. Her remarks show she didnt learn from what happened, and she puts the blame on everyone but herself. With no remorse, she is lucky she didnt lose her carry rights forever and get some type of jail time. Just my opinion.

        • Bill December 19, 2015, 6:41 pm

          O God, to be as perfect as you.

          Simply put, except at GREAT personal expense, scenario shooting just isn’t available except to LEOs and specialized military personnel. Can’t be had.

          $1,500, transportation, lodging, meals and the price of a couple thousand rounds of ammunition for multiple firearms for a weekend of training might make good sense to someone who is on the payroll for the whole weekend, but it’s a bit steep for those of us trying to pick up the tab with what’s left from the grocery money.

          Maybe, instead of complaining that private citizens don’t respond like trained officers, police departments could put together training courses that would train us to meet their expectations for our responses. I’d gladly give up a weekend or two every month to get such training. I WANT to be a better first responder. But such classes, if they exist at all, are rare and there are NONE near me (Lexington, NC). I’d gladly buy my own ammo and lunch … but I can’t travel hundreds of miles, pay for lodging and away from home meals and pay a stiff course fee on top of everything else. Let me spend $100 for the course, pick up my own expenses and teach the classes at local police ranges around the country.

          Nah, that makes too much sense.

    • Zac December 18, 2015, 12:31 pm

      Dude, shooting into a moving vehicle is waaaay more serious than shoplifting. Most big box stores really don’t even give a shit about shoplifting, management knows that it comes with the territory and that it’s simply a fact of life. It is literally a slap on the wrist offense.
      Fuck this remorseless wanna be rambo lady. She should not be carrying a weapon.

    • Zac December 18, 2015, 12:31 pm

      Dude, shooting into a moving vehicle is waaaay more serious than shoplifting. Most big box stores really don’t even give a shit about shoplifting, management knows that it comes with the territory and that it’s simply a fact of life. It is literally a slap on the wrist offense.
      Fuck this remorseless wanna be rambo lady. She should not be carrying a weapon.

    • AsgardBeast December 18, 2015, 3:44 pm

      I have to agree that this individual displayed poor judgment, and I agree with the reasoning utilized by the judge. However, I do NOT agree with the severity of the penalty imposed. While others were “endangered” by her choice, they were no more endangered than by the choices of the fleeing criminal. Having a natural “constitutionally recognized” right revoked for almost 10 years is too severe. Especially considering the probable lack of equally severe penalty for the criminal whom instigated the confrontation in the first place. But opinions always vary, and that is why I have NEVER approved of opinion being law.

  • Barry December 15, 2015, 8:58 pm

    Basic understanding of the CPL is for self defense not vigilanty theif hunter. I think she learned her lesson the hard way ans 2023 is to harsh.

    • Edward Glenn December 18, 2015, 8:17 am

      Not too harsh, at all. She has attitude about what it means “to help” even after sentencing. Her IA made a mistake. She should never had a carry permit, in the first place.

      • Bill December 19, 2015, 6:21 pm

        No. The judge was correct … the shooter thought she was acting in the public good. She understands now that, blessed with hindsight, the public does not want her to do that, thus the “don’t help anybody” comment. She still doesn’t accept that “the public” was right in this situation and that she was wrong. That will come in time.

        Most of us have an exaggerated idea of when we are permitted to shoot. Although the general law may be quite broad, the devil is in the details and the details mean exactly what an individual judge (or jury) says they mean … which is often quite a bit less than we need them to mean.

        Would I have fired when she did? No. All I would have seen is one person chasing another and the person being chased jumping into a car to make their escape. That’s not enough for me to shoot. It MIGHT have been enough for me to draw from concealment — depending on the exact details I was observing (at this point in the game I wouldn’t even know who the “good guy” was … is this an angry husband chasing a cheating wife to hurt her or has the person fleeing already shot someone inside the store? LOTS of information missing at that point) — but I would not have been ready to aim at anything or anyone yet.

        She knows that, too. Now.

        Once she calms down and stops being defensive, she’ll realize that she already knew that.

        In my CCL class I was told to be extremely wary about stepping in to any confrontation … especially if I had not been present from the very start of it. Is the person doing the hitting the aggressor? … or has the victim merely turned the tables on an attacker? Is the guy standing over the old woman taking her groceries so he can help her stand back up … or does he have her head in his hands? Is that a club in the big guys hand or was the little guy striking him with his cane and he’s taken it from him?

        Even if I saw the very beginning of THIS event, I can’t know what previously transpired between two strangers. Possibly the man beating the crap out of another has been chasing him ever since the guy on the ground shot the standing man’s wife during a carjacking half a mile ago and the guy who’s getting the boogers beaten out of him is still in possession of the gun.

        At what point do you step in? On whose behalf? And with what actions?

        You are always on solid ground when you are defending your own life, or that of a known-innocent family member or friend, from a credible and imminent threat in your own home from which escape is unlikely. Even if the law doesn’t permit that, as a human being, you need to step in anyways. Let the jury sort it out.

        Everything else is shaky ground.

        This woman has just gotten bitch-slapped in court … don’t expect her to be contrite and speak in measured terms just yet. She’s still mad at the situation and confused how the tables got turned against her. Later, when she realizes that the mistake was her own doing, she’ll be mad at herself and maybe (justifiably) mad that her CCL instructor didn’t make this point plain but she’ll stop arguing that the law itself is unfair. Sometime after that, she’ll be ready to take her CCW classes over and this time she’ll soak up every syllable and take them all to heart. Or, like I and my wife did when we weren’t satisfied with our original instructor (despite passing the course), seek out another instructor. I think that Manny Matos, our second instructor, did a VERY good job of covering the required material but I won’t even print the name of the first instructors … a cowboy and cowgirl married couple who seemed to be in the CCL business because it beat honest work.

        This is a teachable moment … not a disaster. She made a mistake … she’s not an evil woman.

    • jim December 18, 2015, 10:40 am


  • Justin December 15, 2015, 7:31 pm

    …and this is why we can’t have nice things.

    I also agree with the judge in this case. This woman is an idiot and a poor example of a responsibly armed citizen. Her poor judgment and failure to take responsibility for her actions reflect poorly on us all.

    As I’m sure we all know carrying comes with the responsibility to know the laws regarding the use deadly force. Occasionally, people error when forced to make a split second decision but this isn’t the case either considering the crime was shoplifting and the suspect was fleeing.

    She should have been charged with firing into a motor vehicle, a felony in most states, and barred from owning a firearm forever. It sounds harsh but even her comments after court fail to show genuine remorse or an understanding that what she did was illegal.

    Rationalizing poor decisions, especially in hindsight, is something liberals do…not responsible people.

    • David B December 18, 2015, 3:32 pm

      “… or an understanding that what she did was illegal”

      Or, what may be more important, she fails to understand WHY it is illegal. Suppose, just for sake of argument, the cart had a steel, chrome-plated rear bumper, and she had hoit that. The projectile would have then ricocheted, and who knows where it may have gone.

      Also, she seems to not understand that whenever you shoot at someone, your intent should be to kill. Killing is a bit harsh for a property crime, in which no one was injured, and no one was in danger of injury (other than the person at whom she was shooting).

      It is people like her who make it difficult for the rest of us to argue in favor of firearm ownership.

    • Hubert December 18, 2015, 7:01 pm

      You sir are part of the problem. If your wife was being robbed or her car stolen, wouldn’t you want someone to step in to save the day? I would. I know it is not considered legal by the BS laws that are on the books in most states, but if the robbers and thugs knew that they could would and should be shot, maybe they would stop. Same thing if a cop tells you to stop and you don’t. The next sound should be a pistol going off, maybe the last thing. The America we live in now is, and has for the last 100 years or more been ruled by a bunch of liberal punk azz bitches. I would rather live in a polite but armed and ready society.

      • Bill December 19, 2015, 5:35 pm

        Stick to the scenario at hand. Your blood pressure will drop 15 points. If my wife was in danger, not only would I take any reasonable shot at her attacker that presented itself … I would be completely justified in any NC court — if I was even charged with a crime at all. Same if I was being car-jacked by someone threatening my life (armed or not).

        But that wasn’t the circumstance. This woman witnessed a shoplifter leaving the scene of a larceny and opened fire. That simply isn’t a permitted use of force by a civilian.

        Had the shoplifter opened fire on the security guard or others, it would have been “game on”. But that isn’t what happened.

        You can argue whether it is correct to limit a civilian who is put in such a position from doing what a policeman might legally do, but you can’t argue that she IS a civilian and she IS limited by the the law in this matter.

        Stay in the reality. Focus on it.

        Given the scenario, she was most useful as an alert witness … not as a Rambo-ette.

  • rob tomson December 15, 2015, 4:39 pm

    if she lived in New Jersey, she would be in jail

    • Fake Captain Nemo December 18, 2015, 9:06 am

      Not only would she be in jail, she would be there for life. Defending yourself or others in NJ is almost a capital crime.

      • JJB December 18, 2015, 10:09 am

        Copy that!

        • Mike Price December 18, 2015, 10:48 am

          Why would anybody want to even live in NJ, or for that matter even go there ???

      • rob December 18, 2015, 11:05 am

        if what u say is true then nj needs all new laws
        no way does the lady deserve jail for life!!!!!!!!!
        get serious and get real nj

        • MSG John Laigaie December 18, 2015, 11:28 am

          Sorry mate, pay attention. She was in michigan and got probation, not NJ and life.

  • Samo December 15, 2015, 4:10 pm

    Fleeing suspect is not a threat, you only use your firearm if your life is in danger

    • Magnus Magnusson December 18, 2015, 6:02 am

      Samo, you might check into what your saying, “you can only use your firearm if your life is in danger” . With all due respect, what I believe that statement refers to is the use of deadly force, ie: shooting and wounding or killing someone whom you believe to cause imminent and clear danger to yourself or someone else. You can “use” your firearm in many ways to foil a robbery for instance. This woman, while she may have had good intentions may have put the public in more danger from attempting to stop a shoplifter than to save anyone or anything. I am an Ex-policeman and of course laws change from state to state, that which I spoke of seems to be fairly consistent. I wish you great holidays and good health Samo.

    • Disgusted Citizen December 18, 2015, 10:05 pm

      Actually, you may use deadly force to protect another person whose life is in imminent danger, too.
      An excerpt from Colorado law is included. Other states have similar wording.

      Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified
      in using physical force
      upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person in order to defend
      himself or a third person
      from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical
      force by that other
      person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be
      necessary for that purpose.
      2. Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser
      degree of force is
      inadequate and:
      (a.) The actor has reasonable ground to believe, and does believe, that he
      or another person is in
      imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or
      (b.) The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical
      force against an
      occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or
      attempting to commit
      burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204; or
      (c.) The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit
      kidnapping as defined
      in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or
      18-4-302, sexual
      assault as set forth in section 18-3-402 or 18-3-403 as it existed prior to
      July 1, 2000, or assault as
      defined in sections 18-3-202 or 18-3-203

  • LHTwist December 15, 2015, 3:34 pm

    As a concealed license holder I have to agree with the judge. There was no threat of harm that warranted lethal force. This woman was evidently not paying attention in the pre-license class.

    • Frank Martinez December 18, 2015, 2:29 pm

      I totally disagree with the comment and with the judges ruling, for one, the judge is not a judge but a actor/banker/clerk for the administration of the bankruptcy of the UNITED STATES. to collect all possible taxes for that. the Judge has no authority to rule on such a case, the law of the land says if you see a wrong and do nothing you are just as guilty as the party commenting the crime. What this lady did was the right thing, she shot out the tire of the vehicle. This is a lot less then what a cop would of done as he or they would shot until their guns were empty and then some, now that is reckless behavior and disregard for public safety… I think if the thief was arrested he should be thankful that it was not a cop, otherwise he would be dead. and heaven knows who else. they should be held to the same standards if not more so.

      • Methadras December 18, 2015, 4:55 pm

        Frank, I’m not sure what reality you hail from, but let me try to understand your ‘feelings’ on this subject. Are you saying that a judge, adjudicating this case is not a judge, but something else, but is rather a tax collector for a bankrupt US? Also, can you cite to me any specific statute that shows that a non-intervening citizen in the face of a crime is guilty in complicity with that crime? What this woman did was in contravention to her CCW training. She wasn’t in peril, she wasn’t in fear for her life, she was confronted by the shoplifter and instead shot on a retreating person and their vehicle. Her intentions may have been for the good, but she, as a supposedly responsible CCW permit holder exercised the worst judgement possible in the use of her weapon and her permit. There is absolutely no threat to her at all from a fleeing criminal and therefore she wasn’t within her rights to defend herself or discharge her weapon. I welcome your disagreement, if you have one.

        • About1jab December 19, 2015, 8:39 am

          Methadras; Well stated.

        • Bill December 19, 2015, 5:15 pm

          Saved me some electronic ink. The key points here are 1) that it was an economic crime and 2) that there was no defense of life justification for firing.

          If the car was dragging the security officer and she was sure of her aim, by all means, do an ammo dump into the tires, glass and so on because THEN a life was in peril.

          But an inflatable Santa and four strings of Christmas tree lights? Not worth the gunfire and certainly not worth waiting until 2023 before she can ASK for her right to keep and bear arms back.

          As for Martinez … he’s not worth debating because he misses the central point that she risked taking a life where there was no danger and little loss.

          One of the things I think is important in this is that those who DID pay attention in class and HAVE thought about the matter since post comments that do NOT approve of her actions.

          I think the judge was a bit harsh … maybe a year or two loss of the concealed carry license only and NO firearms without further training, but with certain restoration if training classes were successfully taken in the interim. Maybe the MSP should look into intense classes on both the law and situational judgment for those who err (or simply want to take the classes, as I would,) as insurance that they are knowledgeable about the use of firearms in a conflict. However, although a former resident of Michigan, I am not particularly familiar with Michigan sentencing guidelines.

      • plainfield paladin December 18, 2015, 10:46 pm

        This is a perfect example of who should not carry a firearm concealed or otherwise. Granted she may have been trying to
        help but firing a weapon at a fleeing car that contained only a shoplifter is over the edge there should be more training as
        to when to fire and when not to, next do we fire on people who run red lights or speed, luckily no one was hurt it could have
        ended a lot worse, I agree with the judge and I think her sentence was light but I do not think she should get her ccw back
        there are people who have committed smaller crimes unrelated to guns who are not allowed to have one and are probably more qualified than her to have one. This just gives fuel to the anit-gunners to take away ours

      • Aleksander December 20, 2015, 8:54 pm

        I don’t know what kind of drugs you’re on Frank, but they’re most certainly the kind that would bar one from passing a NICS check.

    • seane December 18, 2015, 7:10 pm

      my one concern with the class is that they don’t teach scenerios they only taught about safe gun handling and about the guns themselves

      • Bill December 19, 2015, 5:24 pm

        Excellent point. Our classes (my wife and I elected to repeat the CCL class because of personal doubts as to the competence of our first instructor) dealt with the law and firearm handling (the handling part was WAY too easy but presumes that the CCL holder will spend additional time developing stronger skills in order that they will be effective (hitting the correct target in time to secure their own safety)).

        However, the cheapest reputable private training (building clearing, crowd situation, etc) starts at $1,500 for a weekend of instruction. Maybe the various state or local police should consider putting together classes for CCL/CCW/CCH license holders to acquire the skills that only simulation and stress training can provide. We don’t want to supplant police … only to hold the fort down for the 5 minutes or so it takes even a very good PD to respond. As soon as they pull their firearms, I’m willing to put mine down. IMMEDIATELY.

        But I want to still be standing when they arrive.

    • michael December 21, 2015, 2:05 pm

      i can agree that the woman should have used better judgement since the immediate threat was past and no induviduals were at risk for their life. reholster and let the LEO’s take over at this point. and yes i am a licensed firearm carrier and in the classroom instruction we received this was covered as to when ‘To and Not To’ use deadly force upon a person(s) instigating the primary act of breaking the law.

Send this to a friend