Washington store owner sentenced to eight years for killing shoplifter

[Jimbo]

https://www.google.com/amp/nbc4i.com/2017/06/26/washington-store-owner-sentenced-to-eight-years-for-killing-shoplifter/amp/

SEATTLE, WA (WCMH) — The convenience store owner will spend more than eight years in prison after shooting a shoplifter in the back.

According to KIRO, Min Kim pleaded guilty earlier this year to shooting Jakeel Mason after he caught him shoplifting at the convenience store.

Prosecutors say Kim shot Mason two times in the back after the two fought and Mason took off running.

“I did not have right to take Mr. Mason’s life, or anyone else’s life. I feel terrible that I did so and will have to live with that for the rest of my life,” Kim said during the trial.

Mason’s death came just more than a month after Kim’s wife was shot during a robbery at the store.

Kim’s lawyer had asked for a 2-year sentence and the prosecution had asked for 10, but the judge settled on eight years, saying Kim had no right to kill an unarmed shoplifter.

[Scott Mc]

Was he wrong yes, but that sentence over the top.

[Jimbo]

I don't think he was wrong at all. His wife was just shot in a similar encounter, the thief stole his property and threatened his livelihood and his life. Good shoot.

[Big A]

I don't think he was wrong at all. His wife was just shot in a similar encounter, the thief stole his property and threatened his livelihood and his life. Good shoot.

The shoplifter was unarmed, and shot in the back. He never made himself a threat, and couldn't have had close to even $100 in sellable merchandise, he was not "threatening this man's livelihood."

Thieves of all kinds suck, but shoplifting shouldn't be an automatic death sentence.

[Jimbo]

The shoplifter was unarmed, and shot in the back. He never made himself a threat, and couldn't have had close to even $100 in sellable merchandise, he was not "threatening this man's livelihood."

Thieves of all kinds suck, but shoplifting shouldn't be an automatic death sentence.

He threatened the owner's livelihood by robbing his store and assaulting the owner.

I for sure view someone fighting me and stealing my property, regardless of monetary value, as a threat. I also think a man's business IS his livelihood.

I've had work equipment stolen from myself and others. That was a direct threat to those peoples ability to earn a living for their family and every one of them would have defended their property with deadly force if given the chance.

[Big A]

Whatever you say Rambo, the guy's own lawyer was trying to plead down to 2 years knowing he fucked up. Stealing and scuffling (likely and justifyably intiated by the store owner) are not at all the same thing as genuinely threatening someones life.

Keep in saying "livelihood" like it has any bearing at all on this case though.

[s1lv3r]

I feel bad for the store owner. After what happened to his wife one could only imagine his state of mind and fearing the same could happen to him. And fuck the thief.

[DON SVO]

Don't ever shoot someone in the back during a store robbery if they're unarmed, especially if there's store video available.

[Jimbo]

Whatever you say Rambo, the guy's own lawyer was trying to plead down to 2 years knowing he fucked up. Stealing and scuffling (likely and justifyably intiated by the store owner) are not at all the same thing as genuinely threatening someones life.

Keep in saying "livelihood" like it has any bearing at all on this case though.

Rambo? That seems like a puerile response to a legitimate disagreement.

Are you trying to say by attempting to stop theft in his own store, the owner "initiated" a fight? That isnt how that works.
I wouldn't test that theory with any other private citizen or law enforcement if I were you.
If a person in process of criminal activity assaults any lawful citizen, I would call that a threat to that person's health and well being, a threat to their life, in other words.

I read about the plea, I'm not surprised. I dealt with the mentality of people in Seattle and the laws they imposed on the rest of the state for years. I disagree with most of it, wholeheartedly.

[Jimbo]

I feel bad for the store owner. After what happened to his wife one could only imagine his state of mind and fearing the same could happen to him. And fuck the thief.

I thought the same.

Don't ever shoot someone in the back during a store robbery if they're unarmed, especially if there's store video available.

Agreed. I feel as though he could have gotten a better deal, fighting all the way, though.


If you are gonna fight a thief and chase them, do it in a different state don't let them get away apparently:

http://www.cbs46.com/story/22960849/officer-shoots-shoplifting-suspect-tied-to-east-texas-robbery

[GhostTX]

It's Seattle. I'm sure he was going to be convicted no matter what, good shoot or no. And probably making an example with the sentence.

[ram57ta]

If the perp had presented a knife or firearm he might have had a defense...but shooting an unarmed thief in the back? Nope. I'm sure those of us who have been victims of theft...or especially repeat thefts have had dreams of unloading a mini-gun on a thief...but in reality when we wake up from the daydream we accept it's not a good idea to open fire on an unarmed thief...especially in the back as he/she is fleeing from you.....that was very poor judgement. I know it's legal in Texas to use deadly force to prevent property theft.....but I'm not going to agree with killing someone for stealing a candy bar or soft drink. That's just a bit excessive.

[Gasser64]

Yeah I don't think I could shoot someone over money like that. But it is his livelihood. How many times can he be stolen from, before it begins to affect his livelihood? He'd already been stolen from plenty. Many companies (take walmart for instance) have already decided that it just does too much harm to the company to let it go. So they even employ full time employees, (loss prevention) in order to try and stop it. The fact that they'd do that, is proof enough that the thievery does a lot of damage.