Can I Shoot a Smash-and-Grab Robber?

[Sedalia Dave]

Ever found yourself in the middle of a smash-and-grab robbery? It’s an alarming situation, and knowing your rights is crucial.

 

[Sedalia Dave]

This is why I do not open carry. Gives me the option to not use lethal force.

[Pat Riot]

Unless myself and or my wife are threatened I wouldn’t bother drawing my gun. Why?

1. What they’re stealing isn’t mine. I have zero stake in what’s being taken.

2. Stores have insurance. 
3. I do not want the death of a dumbassed kid or kids on my conscience. 
4. If the d’bags are adults I still wouldn’t shoot one of them. They might have kids at home. It ain’t the kid’s fault his or her parents are scum. 
5. The store should have had better security or plans for situations like this. It’s not my job to do their job for them. 

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

Depends on the state, if the bg is not armed, quite unlikely.

[Alpo]

Smash and grab robbery, by definition, involves running into a store and breaking the display case with a large heavy implement - a hammer or a crowbar or something similar - and stealing the merchandise and running out.

 

You've got the large heavy implement - the hammer or crowbar or something similar. You are armed. Just because you are not carrying a gun does not mean you are not armed.

[Widder, SASS #59054]

I wouldn't.   For basically the same reasons PR stated above.

 

You don't know all the circumstances that prompted the incident.

 

Although drastic, it could be a planned Security Check.    Barney Fife did "Trouble Checks" on the diner a few times when he

called Juanita.  

 

..........Widder

[Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770]

As long as only property is damaged or taken. If he raises his hammer, (or whatever) to threaten a person, maybe. 

 

[Rye Miles #13621]

26 minutes ago, Pat Riot said:

Unless myself and or my wife are threatened I wouldn’t bother drawing my gun. Why?

1. What they’re stealing isn’t mine. I have zero stake in what’s being taken.

2. Stores have insurance. 
3. I do not want the death of a dumbassed kid or kids on my conscience. 
4. If the d’bags are adults I still wouldn’t shoot one of them. They might have kids at home. It ain’t the kid’s fault his or her parents are scum. 
5. The store should have had better security or plans for situations like this. It’s not my job to do their job for them. 

Bingo!!!

[Chantry]

Pretty much what Pat said. 

 

And check your state laws, most state something to the effect that lethal force can only be used when one is in fear of death or grave bodily harm.

[Cypress Sun]

38 minutes ago, Pat Riot said:

Unless myself and or my wife are threatened I wouldn’t bother drawing my gun. Why?

1. What they’re stealing isn’t mine. I have zero stake in what’s being taken.

2. Stores have insurance. 
3. I do not want the death of a dumbassed kid or kids on my conscience. 
4. If the d’bags are adults I still wouldn’t shoot one of them. They might have kids at home. It ain’t the kid’s fault his or her parents are scum. 
5. The store should have had better security or plans for situations like this. It’s not my job to do their job for them. 

 

This ^^^

 

I'll add - Even a self defense/justified shooting is going to get REAL expensive. I highly doubt that the jewelry (or other) store is going to provide funds for your lawyer...cause you're going to need one, regardless of legality of the shooting, if you shoot someone.

[Colorado Coffinmaker]

A LARGE PLUS ONE for Pat Riot.

[Gateway Kid SASS# 70038 Life]

27 minutes ago, Chantry said:

Pretty much what Pat said. 

 

And check your state laws, most state something to the effect that lethal force can only be used when one is in fear of death or grave bodily harm.

Ours includes the line “or in defense of a third party who is in fear of death or great bodily injury”

Regards

    

Gateway Kid

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

It can also get technical with things like “the bad guy has smashed, grabbed, and is heading out the door.” In this case nobody’s life is in imminent danger.

[bgavin]

George Floyd, and the huge amount of $$ he generated for other creeps, is proof enough to stand down.

[Texas Maverick]

2 hours ago, Sedalia Dave said:

This is why I do not open carry. Gives me the option to not use lethal force.

I totally agree. Unless someone's life is in danger I would just try to be a competent witness to the crime. My gun would stay in its holster hidden under my shirt. No one would ever know I was armed. I spent over 12 years in law enforcement and know this would be a nightmare for myself to intervene with a firearm in this situation. Even just brandishing a firearm could get expensive.

 

TM

[sassnetguy50]

1 hour ago, Alpo said:

Smash and grab robbery, by definition, involves running into a store and breaking the display case with a large heavy implement - a hammer or a crowbar or something similar - and stealing the merchandise and running out.

 

You've got the large heavy implement - the hammer or crowbar or something similar. You are armed. Just because you are not carrying a gun does not mean you are not armed.

You're more likely to die from a blunt instrument than from a bullet according to FBI death statistics.

[Utah Bob #35998]

The question was “Can ?…I”.

I had an instructor in Constitutional Law at the police academy. He would be asked questions such as “ Can I arrest a guy who is yada yada yada?”

He would answer, “Sure you can. You Can arrest anybody.You have a gun and handcuffs” 
“But if you do, would it be legal? Will you end up in prison yourself?”

Know the law and use your head.

 

[Texas Maverick]

2 hours ago, sassnetguy50 said:

You're more likely to die from a blunt instrument than from a bullet according to FBI death statistics.

No one will argue that point with you but if the thug is just breaking into cases and not approaching customers then he still is not a threat of life to me. I also feel I have two hands, two feet and a head plus a knife if necessary as weapons at hand, but this still would be a case by case basis and how the threat is presented as to whether it would justify pulling my gun.

 

TM

[Ozark Huckleberry]

I always figured I'd take whoever I cared about that was with me and head out the back door. If that was a no-go for any reason, I'd head for a corner (maybe via the sporting goods, if for some unfathomable reason I wasn't heeled.)

 

Or depending on the store, just head for the work boots. Not much chance a smash-and-grab robber is heading there.

 

But chute 'em? Not unless it was clearly self-defense, for all the good points made by:

4 hours ago, Pat Riot said:

 

 

4 hours ago, Widder, SASS #59054 said:

 

 

4 hours ago, Chantry said:

 

 

3 hours ago, Cypress Sun said:

 

 

2 hours ago, bgavin said:

 

 

11 minutes ago, Texas Maverick said:

 

 

[watab kid]

ny thought is - its a sad thing we have to even contemplate or discuss this , this used to be a law abiding nation for the most part and even criminals once had a code they sorta lived by , but ............to the point , no i dont shoot unless there is immenent threat of great bodily harm or death at the hands of these criminals , the law SHOULD DEAL WITH THEM , but i know its not doing that these days