TN Woman charged for shooting robber ?

[OuTcAsT]

This one is tricky. I was honestly surprised she was charged,particularly here in TN. This is why you don't give a statement to LE without an attorney IMO.







https://www.wkrn.com/news/crime-trac...idoG2jYyMSO6ik

[Doyle]

It sounds like she may have shot twice - the first time when the guy lunged at her and the second time as he was running away. It was the running away shot that has gotten her into trouble.

[TX Nimrod]

Terrible “journalism” here. Did she shoot once, or twice? The article says once. She shot “at the ground” and “shot him once in the back“....ricochet? Who knows, don’t take anything you read at face value, the reporter was likely incorrect. Unlike most gun owners, they don’t seem to care about accuracy.....



.

[Sharkbite]

The news report i read stated he was shoplifting some liquor and she shot at the floor as he was leaving. He was struck in the back. So, i would surmise it was a ricochet.

Shooting someone over PROPERTY is not going work out well for her if that is the case.

[Frank Ettin]

First, it's basically impossible to have a serious discussion about the law applicable in an incident based on a media story. There's never enough detail.

But on the other hand, shooting a guy in the back as he is running away with a couple bottles of wine (even if it were Chateau Petrus) is going to be a major legal problem.

[Hal]

More on the story:
https://globintel.com/usa/who-is-may...-work-charges/

[Tom Servo]

Oh, boy...

She said that Fisher’s demeanor led her to believe he was going to steal the two liquor bottles. (...) Boyce said she aimed the gun at the floor and pulled the trigger but instead of shooting the ground, Fisher was hit in the back.

First off, simple theft doesn't ever justify lethal force. She's on the hook for that. Second, the "I didn't mean to" excuse erodes any claim she might make about being afraid for her safety.

She didn’t express remorse for shooting Fisher in an interview with the New York Post and insisted that she simply did what she “had to do.” She said her store has been robbed several times in the past few years and she is “fed up” with feeling afraid.

She needed to retain decent legal counsel, and that legal counsel should have told her to shut up. Her public statements can and will be admitted, and it's highly unlikely a jury will be sympathetic.

Lessons? Don't shoot unless you have no other choice, and don't run off at the mouth until a lawyer says it's safe.

[Swifty Morgan]

You really can't tell whether she's guilty from the available facts.

[WyMark]

You really can't tell whether she's guilty from the available facts.

Definitely not now the system works.

[Double Naught Spy]

Terrible “journalism” here. Did she shoot once, or twice? The article says once. She shot “at the ground” and “shot him once in the back“....ricochet? Who knows, don’t take anything you read at face value, the reporter was likely incorrect. Unlike most gun owners, they don’t seem to care about accuracy.....

Regardless of what you think of the journalistic details, the detail that seems very salient is her description that she shot the guy running away and without any information indicating that he was still a threat. That right there should have answered your question. She is not charged with shooting a robber. That isn't a charge you will find on the books, anywhere. What she described is using lethal force when there wasn't a threat to her or anyone else.

Hal's citation is even more damming.

Other details may come out at trial, but what she describes doesn't sound like a "good shoot."

[OuTcAsT]

She needed to retain decent legal counsel, and that legal counsel should have told her to shut up. Her public statements can and will be admitted, and it's highly unlikely a jury will be sympathetic.

Exactly. Had she kept her mouth shut and, spoken with counsel before she gave any statement, the outcome may have been different.

That was my point.