Hello everyone! Welcome to week nine of the blogs!!!!
A South Texas convenience store owner was arrested on September 29, 2013. According to authorities, a 39 year old man came into the store in an attempt to steal a case of beer before fleeing. However, Rodney James Duve, the store owner, shot and killed the man before he could get away with his beer.
So 52 year old Duve was arrested at the store and the suspect was taken to the hospital but later pronounced dead. Do you believe that Rodney Duve’s actions were reasonable why/why not? Do you believe Duve was protecting himself why/why not?
Hello Loudes.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the post, hence, from my perspective I think Duve should have waited before he reacted. Duve shot an individual that was truly not a threat to him or other persons. There were other alternatives which should/could have been used in this situation. The statement in which I would like to note is: was shooting an unarmed man worth the time he will most likely received due to his indiscretions; I think not.
I don't think so either Ms. Harrell. I think people with guns should do what you do. Have it unloaded, that way when they are loading it to shoot they have time to think about it. If Duven had done that he wouldn't be in the situation he is in right now.
DeleteMs. Harrell I think you are right the store owner Duven is wrong for shooting the man , because he was in the wrong the poor individual was doing nothing to put himself in any harm what so ever , and shooting the man even though he was wrong for trying to steal, but he should not have shot the man and Mr. Duven now is sitting in jail for the crime he committed for no reason at all.
DeleteIn my perspective I believe Rodney James Duve did the right thing in the way he reacted with shooting the suspect. Rodney was trying to keep his store safe and secure. The individual should have seen in coming right from the moment he walked into the store. Rodney was just doing his duty in protecting his store.
ReplyDeleteYes, but there are many other ways of protecting your store without killing someone. The men was just stealing bear, he didn't even try to attack Duven. Maybe instead of killing him Duven should've called the cops. So that they could handle the problem themselves. And as for the thief "seeing it comeing" I don't think he really anticipated being shot to death.
DeleteI agreed with you juanita , they are alot of ways of protecting your store without killing a person. The suspect was just stealing beer, thats a minor offense so duve had no right to shoot him.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree with Victor and Juanita. There are many ways to handle situations like this. There is always more than one solution to a problem, there will never be a good enough reason to kill someone, especially if it's for stealing beer. Duve shouldn't of have shot the suspect. He should of thought about it before acting upon it.
DeleteUnfortunately I don't agree with you Victor. Yes, he was trying to protect his store but he should have thought before taking action. If the suspect didn't try to harm him he should have let him take the beer. Instead, he shot and killed a man and is now in custody.
DeleteI agree with you!! Rodney was protecting his store. He was doing anything a store owner would and shoot a thief that comes into the store. The thief should of known that he might get shoot if he is trying to steal. There is no time to react and think about where you're going to shoot a robber. It was just bad luck that he killed the thief.
DeleteI also agree with Rolando the man knew exactly what he was doing and I feel absolutely no sympathy. Perhaps if the man was trying to steal food then maybe I would understand but beer. I feel that he was in the wrong.
DeleteI do not agree with you, Rolando. Shooting a man for stealing a case of beer sounds a bit overboard. If the man posed some threat in the store, then that's something different, but stealing beer isn't menacing enough to be shot for.
DeleteHe was trying to keep his store safe but there are many other ways of doing that. Duve did not have to kill the man to do this. The man was not a threat to being with and now Duve will be the one to suffer for his actions.
DeleteSorry, but I don't think a stolen beer case should be the reason someone looses their life. I understand the man was committing a crime, but shooting and killing someone who is unarmed and wasn't putting anyone's life in danger is murder. There is no justifiable reason for murdering someone.
DeleteI would have to disagree with Roland on this matter , because Rodney James Duve is wrong for shooting the man even though the individual had the intentions to steal a case of beer from the store ,but the man had no weapon or was putting Rodney James Duve in any danger at all for him to shoot the man on the spot , but that is my opinion on this matter.
DeleteI think that what Duven did was reasonable, because he proably shot the thief in the heat of the moment. And his first instict was probably to stop him with the gun. I'm not saying that what he did was correct, but I get why Duven shot the men. As for portection, I don't think he was trying to protect himself. Like I said it was probably in the heat of the moment. After all what would he be protecting himself from? A running thief? I also do not think he should get a severe punishment because I do not think he meant to kill the other men. I think he was just trying to give him a good scare.
ReplyDeletehe justification for using deadly force to stop the thief as a first instinct is not enough in a courtroom. There are other methods to stopping the thief. I think that he should get a severe punishment. For one, he killed the thief cold blooded. Two, the thief did not pose any form of threat to Duve. If we do not act now, what is stopping him from acting again? We must pose these fins of question when talking about deadly force.
DeleteI'm sorry, but I have to disagree with you Juanita. His reason for shooting the suspect is not good enough. There is never a good reason for killing a human being. Yes we all mistakes some bigger than others, but I think he could of taken other measurements towards the theft.
DeleteI also disagree with Juanita. Yes, the suspect did intrude the store, but nowhere did it say that the suspect harmed or intended to harm the owner. Of course, I am not saying its ok to go around stealing beer but the store owner should have used his head. I understand he did it in his first instinct but it still is no reason.
DeleteI also disagree with Juanita. Yes, the suspect did intrude the store, but nowhere did it say that the suspect harmed or intended to harm the owner. His reason for killing the suspect is not good. Not saying its ok to go around to stores to steal beer but the store owner should have used his head. I understand that he felt like he need to protected his marches but now he has to pay the price in jail.
DeleteUnfortunately, I disagree with you Juanita. Just because I may be in the "heat of the moment", doesn't mean I should shoot someone. Lets think logically. Guns are not always the answer. There are plenty of things the store owner could've done besides pull the trigger.
DeleteI also disagree with you Juanita. The store owner should have used his head. I did not see anything about the suspect trying to harm the store owner. He should have let police take care of the situation.
DeleteI'm sorry but, yes Juanita, i also disagree with you because the suspect was not doing anything to harm Duve. He was only stealing beer. Yes, i know it's wrong to steal but that's not an exception for shooting the suspect.
DeleteThe store owner did not need to deadly force to stop the suspect. The security cameras would have gotten a picture of the suspect. I do not think Duve protected himself. The suspect did not pose a threat to Duve. Therefore, the stand your ground law would be a poor defense.
ReplyDeletei agreed with you juan carlos, duve should of not shot the suspect, he wasent posing a threat to duve so duve had no right to shoot the suspect..
DeleteI agree with you Juan if there was another way he could have delt with the situation he should have did that instead of flat out killing someone. Although theres to sides to every story. How I see it coming to a point too shoot someone you must feel like your life's being threaten. Thats probaly how he felt in my opinion.
DeleteI'm in agreement with Juan Carlos about Rodney James Duve shooting the individual with deadly force. He had no need to pull a weapon out and shot ,because no harm was coming to him what so ever and the only thing the man want was a case of beer and didn't want no complications at all even though he was in the wrong for trying to steal a pack of beer Mr. Rodney James Duve is also in wrong for shooting the individual with no purpose of being put in any danger at all .
DeleteThe store owner did not have the right to shoot the suspect,he was just stealing beer,that is a minor offence and i think duve should go to prison for that.The suspect did not pose a threat to duve he dint even attack him.Duve should of just called the cops there was no need for killing.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. A minor offense does not require deadly force. There was no need for violence. Duve should be held responsible for his actions. Today, more and more people are not taking responsibility for their actions. Hopefully, Duve will.
DeleteI agree with you Victor he shouldve called the cops before shooting. Someones life was lost but was it really self defense? If this investegation continues more facts might be brought up.
DeleteI strongly agree with you Victor. It was a minor offense and something the police could have handled. In my perspective, Duve should have called the police and reported the robbery. Instead, Duve took actions into his own hands and now someone's life has been lost.
DeleteI agree with you victor. The man was not a treat to him. He could have had handle this problem different. Duve should of had called the police. If he had done that he would not be in custody at this time. He should have had think of it better before he reacted.
DeleteI agree. Maybe the suspect came in at the wrong time. Duve probably had a lot on his mind when the suspect came in the store. But at the end of the day Duve could of handled the situation way better then how it happen.
DeleteI Agree With Victor But I Think Duve Just Didn't Want His Stuff StoleD . He Should Of Just Chased Him Down Are Something Then Shooting him.
DeleteI agree with you victor. Duve should have let police Handel the situation. There is no justification for killing an individual over beer.
DeleteIn my opinion there's alot of blank points in this story. Did the man who attempted to steel the beer have a weapon? Was there a confrontation at the scene? If there was I believe yes what Rodney did was protect himself. If he really felt threating to a point where he felt he had to shoot the suspect in order to stay alive then he should not be trialed. Although if there was another way Rodney could've have delt with this situation he should have done that. Hence if Rodney felt it was the right thing to do with no doubt then I don’t believe he should be punished.
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree with you Ashley Cabrera. All of the questions you wrote will help understand the case. We nit to know if Duve really had a reason to take the gun on him. I do agree that the problem could be solve another way.
DeleteYes Ashley that is my exact point, in my opinion there are a lot of questions unanswered. I believe Duve did what he thought was absolutely necessary to protect himself
DeleteI agree Ashley we still do not know to whole story. I also believe that at that moment Duve felt that he had to use his weapon. Also he should not be punished for his actions because they were justified.
DeleteIn my perspective what Duve did was not reasonable. I believe surveillance would have caught the 39 year old man and instead of shooting him, Duve should have called the police and reported the robbery. The 39 year old did commit a crime, but I believe Duve should have not shot him over a case of beer. It would have been reasonable if Duve was held at gunpoint or if the man have a weapon because that would have been self-defense. There could have been another way to resolve this situation.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you on some part because the 39 year old would have been caught on camera but what if you could not see his face or any features. But I disagree with you on the reasonable because it could of been him shot and dead but we don't know if the suspect had a weapon but thats from my perspective.
DeleteMorally it was wrong to shoot the victim, but we need to remember that the victim happened to be a criminal himself. Legally it was right to shoot him for theft of his property.
DeleteIn my opinion there was some right and rung things in this case. I do believe that he had the right to take the gun out. The wrong part is that he did not night to shout him. I would understand if the man had a gun. If the man had a gun I would understand that he night to protect him self. But, if he did not there was no reason for him to take the gun out. Duve should just have called the police.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you saying their was some right and wrong things in this situation because Duve should not have shot the suspect but did have the right to protect himself and his store. We do not know if the suspect did have a gun or not those are questions should have been answered. Duve should have called the police.
DeleteIn my point of view, I think that the store owner did not think thoroughly towards his actions. The suspect was unarmed therefore nothing was going to happen to the store or the owner. Killing a man for stealing beer really? I don't think that is a good enough reason to kill someone what so ever, because of his actions he is not going face the consequences. As of protecting himself, protecting himself from what? The suspect was unarmed! I believe his actions were wrong.
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree with you Cindy. I also do not believe that the store owner did not think before pulling out the gun and shooting the 39 year old man. The fact that it was over a case of beer is sad. The store owner should have just called the police and reported the robbery. I don't understand how Duve felt threatened if the man was not armed. Now because of Duve's actions, he may be facing some consequences.
DeleteI agree with you cindy how he did not think throughly towards his actions. Then, I also disagree on how you said the suspect was unharmed ,it did not say if the suspect was harmed or unharmed at the scene.
DeleteI definitely agree with you. The choice that he made was not very thought before done. Many people may disagree but he really should have not just taken it into his own hands.
DeleteJustice Gonzalez.
He's actions were not reasonable because he shouldn't take someone's life over a beer. What he should of done was call the police and show them the surveillance footage. Dave was not protecting him self because the man did not have a weapon on him. Also, he didn't charge at the cashier.
ReplyDeleteYes the thief didn't try to cause harm to him harm to the cashier ,he should have acted differently.
DeleteI disagree with you Ramiro, I think his actions were reasonable. Also, it did not say if the suspect had a weapon or not. There is so many information missing at the scene. Some people do not know how to react in situations like this.
DeleteI with you Ramiro, why shoot somebody over beer? The robber also didn't have a weapon on him so he shouldn't have been in fear for his life. Like you said he should have just called the police and show them the video.
DeleteIn my opinion, I do not think the owner's actions were reasonable, although, I do think he was tying to protect himself. His actions weren't reasonable because if the suspect did not pull out a weapon, neither should have he. No where in the report did it say the suspect held the owner at gun point or anything so the owner should have thought. He could have at least took it out to scare the suspect, not actually shoot him. The owner, I think was trying to protect himself but like i said, he should have reacted differently.
ReplyDeleteI agree he was not in any danger and he should have acted differently.
DeleteI argee with you Duve was not harm at all with the suspect. In Duve mind it just atomically popped up in his mind to react the way he reacted. Which I think he didn't have the right to shoot the suspect.
DeleteI disagree Duve was not in any harms way for him to pull out a gun and shoot the man. However I do agree that his actions were in the heat of the moment.
DeleteHe was only trying to protect himself, clerks die everyday for being robbed, held at gun point at a gas station. How did Duve know if the suspect had a weapon held against him or not?
DeleteNo I do not believe that Duve was protecting himself. The thief was trying to run away not come at him; Duve was not in immediate danger. I think that in the heat of the moment he got carried away and that led him to killing the thief.He should have been more level headed and this tragedy could have been avoided.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Max, he did get carried away and shot the suspect. Nowadays its seems like its getting harder for people to keep a cool head when in these situations. I just pray that this doesn't happen again.
DeleteBut If Someone Run In Your Store Are House Takes Some Thing Yo Gonna Chase Him Right? I Think That Duve Did What He Had TO Do . But He Probably Didn't Have To Shoot Him.
DeleteI agree with you, the owner was not in any peril at the time the incident ocurred. If the robber was pointing a gun at the store owner,then that would have justified the actions of the store owner. However, there was not any known weapon in the case.
DeleteI totally agree with you Max but you also have to think about both sides. Duve was protecting his store and he shouldn't have shot the suspect because he wasn't threatening him. But he did and in his mind set he thinks "well a man is robbing me so I have every right to shoot him". He should have thought twice about it but when it comes down to situations like that that was only choice being old and everything.
DeleteI dont think Duve was protecting hisself. It was a minor offense and something the police could have handled. In my perspective, Duve should have called the police and reported the robbery. Now Duve has to service time for not thinking twice about the situation that he was in.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Duve should have called the police and reported the robbery. Shooting the man was uncalled for even if he did try to rob a case of beer. It was just one case now Duve has to face jail time for his heat of the moment action.
DeleteI agree with you, it was a minor offense that the robber comitted. There were certainly other ways to deal with the situation. Unfortunatly, a life was lost due to a wrong choice. The owner should have thought twice before pulling the trigger.
DeleteI don't and do agree agree with you Danielle. Yes Duve should have reported the robbery before shooting but you have to think about if you were in Duve's position. He's thinks he's protecting himself and his store and also, thinking he has every right to shoot the suspect.I feel Duve shouldn't be charged with anything because of that reason.
DeleteI agree with you, Mr.Duve should have called the police & report a robbery in progress . Shooting a man was uncalled for even if he did try to robbed a case of beer. It was just one case now Duve should have let him go no he has to face jail time. Yes the man was a thife and yes if he was alive he should go to jail. Now Mr.Duve has to sit in jail and think everday about how he should have waited for the police to arrive.
DeleteI believe that Duve did the right thing on shooting the suspect, but if the suspect had any type of weapon on him. Also, if the suspect didn't have any weapons he shouldn't have shoot the gun he could have handle the situation in a different way. I do think Duve actions were reasonable, he was trying to protect himself. So many things happen in this world that are unexpected and some people don't know how to react.
ReplyDeleteI disagree, because he did not do the right thing. Duve should have called the police and attempted to stop the unknown man from getting away. Duve was not faced with a threat, so he should pay the price. What exactly was he protecting himself from Yessica? The 39 year old did not have a weapon, he just wanted some beer. He was wrong on attempting to steal the beer though.
DeleteIt’s sad knowing that this store owner is likely going to receive jail time or possibly prison time for his action. I believe he was probably tired of people stealing items from his store so he took matters to his own. Plus this is a grown 39 year old that apparently hasn’t learned his lesson as a kid shoplifting. By the time he would have called the police the man would have fled the scene. I’ve believe he did the right thing in shooting him but I’m also against the store owner for killing him. I’m pretty sure if the thief would of survived most of you all would of said, “That’s what he gets for stealing.”
ReplyDeleteI Think That Duve Did The Right Thing .The Man Tried To Take Beer That He Didn't Pay For. Duve Probably Didn't Think The Police Were Gonna Go Anything About So He Stop Him . I Don't Think Duve Should Of Got Arreseted Because If Someone Comes In My House And Steal Something Im Do What Duve Did . He Was Just Watching His Store .
ReplyDeleteI would also do the same thing if someone would come into my house and steal something. I believe this because this has happened to me and the police took 10 minutes to arrive.
DeleteI agree with you Chris. The man was trying to steal beer. I would of shoot any intruder who entered my house and who would of tried to steal my stuff. I don't know if i could of controlled my self and not shot the thief to death. The store owner shouldn't of been arrested for protecting his store.
DeleteI think that the store owner did the right thing by shooting him. I think it was justified. The store owner more than likely shoot the man in the heat of the moment. He couldn't think reasonably and just shoot the man. The thief shouldn't of been stealing the beer.. Bad things happen to people who's actions are bad.
ReplyDeleteJust like that show My Name is Earl used to say, good things happen to good people, which in between the lines says that bad things happen to bad people. If he had not attempted to steal, he would steal be alive. This incident makes one think about those middle eastern countries that cut off hands of those who steal.
DeleteI agree with you on the idea that the store owner was not thinking reasonably, maybe because he was put in a new dangerous situation to him. But, I still believe that shooting the man and killing him was more than was needed to handle the situation, but then again we all do crazy things in crazy situations.
DeleteI also think that the store owner did the right thing by shooting him. I think it was justified.
DeleteI believe that Duve did do the right thing but the as for the suspect their are questions to be answer. We do not know that if the suspect had a weapon or not with him, so their could be two answers for this question. I do not think that Duve should have gone arrested for what he did, because he was robbing his store and also he was just looking out for his store. I also think Duve was protecting himself from getting hurt. So now Duve is in prison for doing something right and doing time for someone else.
ReplyDeleteIn my own opinion, the convinient store owner should have not shot the robber. The robber was only running out the store and he did not impose a threat on the life of the store owner. The owner could have used safer and less deadly tacticts. Futher investigation should be conducted by the local law enforcement. Hence, I do not believe the store owner was protecting himself.
ReplyDeleteI understand where you are coming from Lesley, but if the store owner let this guy get away that means he would also have to let away all the ones after this one. These suspects with minor offences usually do not get caught, some stores do not even report them because they will just waste their time without results.
DeleteI agree with you Lesley, the robbery didn't threat anyone in the store; he just ran and stole some pack of beer. However, the store owner shouldn't shot the robber just for stealing, like you say he should of contact the officer. I mean he was trying to protect himself and the store, but there weren't any action to use a weapon.
DeleteI do not think the store owner had justification for shooting a man on his "beer run." The thirty nine year old unknown suspect posed no threat to Duve or anyone in the store. But i do understand Duve,he was, like everyone before me is saying, he was in the heat of the moment. That beer case was Duve's property and he was protecting it his gun was probably the first way he thought of. Think, if this thief was allowed to get away with it, that means everyone else can get away with it too. I also would like more information on how may times Duve shot the beer thief, if he emptied a whole magazine on the guy then he should definitely pay for his crime, if that was the case.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree with you Miguel. Duve was indeed in the heat in the moment and he felt that his only choice was to shoot the man without thinking. The man is also at fault for this murder as well he should have thought about what he was doing first before going into that convenient store.
DeleteI personally disagree with Rodney James Duve actions. Mr. Duve could have waited or just let the man walk away with the case of beer. You could have been the bigger person and let him go. I believe that he should let the police take care of the situation. A case of beer does not give you the right to kill to a man. Yes this man was a thief. He did not kill or beat Mr. Duve to take the case of beer. But if the victim was still alive I would make him go to jail for thief by taking. Now scene the male is dead over the beer . Mr. Duve should be sanction to 10-15 years in prison without parole.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Crystal, Duve shouldn't of shot the man. The men should of waited for the police to take action. Also I agree with the sanction of 10-15 years for the 52 year old actions.
DeleteIn my opinion Duve should have never shot the suspect if he wasn't threatening him in any sort of way. No, Rodney Duve's actions were not reasonable whatsoever. He should have let this man go and reported a robbery in his store and I'm sure there are cameras who could have identified the suspect. I'm positive Duve thought he was protecting himself ,him being 52 and all he's too old to run after the suspect or start a fight. I also believe Duve shouldn't have gotten arrested for his actions because there are many questions to be asked about the suspect which, there isn't enough information about.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, Duve should not have shot the 39 year old because he was just stealing a pack of beer. The cameras would have gotten a picture of the man but then what? I think that is what many people are trying to argue against. If Duve would not have shot him, what consequences would he have received if he would have fled?
DeleteI agree Duve should not have shot the 39 year old man cause he wasn't a Threat to the store owner. His actions were not reasonable just cause the 39 year old man tried to steal a case of beer it caused him his life.
DeleteI agree with you, Duve shouldn't of shot the man for stealing a pack of beers. I also agree with you when you stated the fact that the 52 year old man was probably just trying to protect himself. I believe that the investigation should go into more depth in order to really know what went on.
DeleteI believe that Duve did not do the right thing, and he should be punished. I get that he was in the heat of the moment but that does not justify his actions. The 39 year old was wrong for attempting to steal a pack of beer but he did not deserve to die for it. Duve could have called the police instead of putting himself in a predicament. Although the authorities would have arrived late to the scene, meanwhile the man could have attempted to stop the 39 year old from fleeing. Duve was not threatened with a weapon, so why did he take out his?
ReplyDeleteI Totally agree with you just cause the 39 year old was trying to steal a case of beer that shouldn't have caused him his life. Duve shouldn't have taken action into his own hands, he should have called the police.
DeleteI agree that Duve should have called the police. Duve was not physically harmed or threatened, so he should have not used his weapon as protection.
DeleteDive should have waited until he shot suspect just caused harm to him at the time. The store owner killed the man for a case of beer so he should have report it to the police.The owner should have let man flee with beer you just losing a little of money there.The owner caught for self defense no the did not case danger to him just the business.The owner should look back at this and think about it if was right or wrong at the time.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree Juan. Duve has given up his freedom over a case of beer. He could have waited to see if the suspect was armed before shooting. Five also could have notified authorities and made a report. He went over board by pulling the trigger.
DeleteI agree with you Juan he could have waited besides shooting the suspect. He could have done something other than shooting the suspect, but the owners life could have been in danger Mr. Duve did not know what was in the suspect pocket or intentions just to steal the beer. Your also right he is loosing just a little money but nevertheless it doesn't make it okay nor okay for him just to shoot the suspect.
DeleteIn my opinion Duve was not in the wrong. We as the public do not know the entire report. I believe there maybe other details the police did not release. I find it a little hard to believe that Duve being a store owner would react so violently towards a shoplifter. The police are still investigating the incident so until further information. If in fact he shot the man in self defense then Duve should not be charged in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Valerie Mr.Duve was not in the wrong. As I said in my main blog, if this is all the details of the crime then he was not in the wrong. You have think like if you where in his position though, as the store manager you don't know what was in the suspects pocket. Maybe it was self defense maybe we panicked not enough information was told.
DeleteI indeed agree with the both of you . You have to think like the store owner . I would be scared to be in that position . Duve shouldn't be charged . He was just acting in defense .
DeleteMr. Duves actions were not reasonable due to the fact that he killed a man over one case of beer. Yes he was trying to defend himself but he should of shot that man in a different place just to wound him . I believe Duve was caught in the moment and he just shot . He protected himself , but not in the right way .
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, Mr. Duve could of have shot the man on another place rather than giving him a life threatening wound. Perhaps he was caught in the moment and shot the man without knowing what to do exactly.
DeleteYes you are so right there was many other ways Duve coukd have handled the situation ,Killing a man was not the right way. Yes he could have just wounded the man by shooting at him in a different spot so he wouldn't die. Another way hecould have handled the situation was by calling the police.
DeleteI don't think Rodney the store owner was protecting himself because he didn't cause a threat to him. The man was just tying to steal a case of beer and run, that shouldn't have caused him his life. Instead of shooting at the man, Rodney should have thrown something at him if anything if not he should of called the police. How can someone take someone else's life over a case of beer, that's just not right. It would of been better if Rodney would have ran after the guy and took notes in his head to describe him to the police.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Gabrielle, he should of call the police and give a description of the man who stole a pack of beer. The man didn't have a gun to harm anyone and Duve should have seen if the man reacted. He didn't have the right to shoot someone just for stealing something.
DeleteI agree gree with you Gabrielle, he should've of call the police and the man didn't have a gun to harm anyone and Duve should have seen if the man reacted. He didn't have the right to shoot someone just for stealing something. A pack of beer did put Mr.Duve in danger.
DeleteElishua Williams
Indeed, I agree with you Gabrielle. Rodney had no reason whatsoever to shoot at the suspect. His life wasn't in danger, so why kill somebody for stealing beer? The police could have handle this situation in a different form.
DeleteI believe that Rodney Duve's actions were reasonable because it was his store that the person was stealing from. Duve was basically getting robbed. That's like a home invasion, he was only protecting himself. If I put myself in his shoes and had a weapon, I'd probably do the same thing.
ReplyDeleteI partially agree with you Jazmin, but Duve did not have to shoot at the 39 year old man and kill him. Although the suspect was attempting to steal from Duves property, which he should not have done in the first place. There was no justification for murder.
DeleteI agree with you he was just protecting his store and his life. Its the robber's fault for trying to steal at his store. If he didn't try to do that then he should be alive right now.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI disagree with you Jazmin. Mr. Duve could have waited to see if the victim was armed before shooting. He also could have called the police. I understand he was being robbed, but would you rather lose a case of beer or be in prison?
DeleteI agree with half of your statement. It is so true of how it was so wrong that Duve was getting robbed. I disagree that that was a way he was protecting himself. The suspect was already leaving the store with out physically harming Duve.
DeleteI disagree with you. Duve shot and killed an unarmed man trying to steal a case of beer. I personally think getting shot and killed over something so small is just not right. Yes, I understand that he was getting robbed but there were way many other options that did not include someone’s life getting taken away. There was not any harm so what is there to protect. The suspect was not harming anyone and he only had one case of beer. Duve should have just called the cops and let them handle it.
DeleteI would disagree with you in this one Jazmin. There was no physical harm in any way towards Duve. He should have just called the police and reported the incident to the police instead of putting it in his own hands. He now has to get the consequences over a case of beer that the police could have settled.
DeleteI believe Rodney Duve’s actions were not reasonable because he didn't have the right to shoot a 39 year old man for just stealing a pack of beers. If the man was threading anyone then Duve should have react, but the man didn't had a gun. Yes, I understand Duve was trying to protect him and the store, but he didn't have the right to shoot someone just for stealing, he should have contact the police first besides taking someone life.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you crystal ,Duve should have handled this by notifying the authorities .Their was really no need what so ever for Duve to shoot at the suspect unless he showed some kind of threat.
DeleteYour right, he could have handled this situation a lot better of only he had called the police. Duve was only protecting what was his, even though he did fatally kill a man over beer was pretty dumb of him.
DeleteI absolutely agree with you Crystal. Mr.Duve had no reason to shoot someone for stealing. Yes, the suspect was doing wrong, but he wasn't a threat to anyone. There was no reason to take his life. Like you said, Mr.Duve should have called the police before taking action.
DeleteRodney's actions were not reasonable because he did not have the right to take the 39 year old man's life. I think Rodney should of thought of the consequences before taking action. The suspect should of received consequences for taking the beer, but I believe death shouldn't of been his consequence. Rodney should be sanction to some years in prison and also attend to a mental rehabilitation center.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Flor about Rodney not having the right to take away the man's life. However, I don't think that he needs to be sent to a mental rehabilitation center. I believe that Rodney shot the man because it was a first instinct and he was trying to protect his store. It doesn't seem like he meant to purposely shoot him with intent to kill him.
DeleteI believe that Mr.Duve should've go to prison. Yes he was being robbed but the case of beer didn't put him in danger. The male who died should go to jail if he was alive. But we don't know what his mind set or how he felt in that moment. Mr. Duve should go to prison for 10 years with prole.
ReplyDeleteElishua Williams
I do not agree because , Duve didn't know if the suspect was harmful. The suspect could maybe had a weapon on him. So he did right for protecting himself.
DeleteI believe the store owner should be to prison. We do not shoot people for stealing petty items. A man stealing beer does not pose a threat to anyone, especially if he wasn't armed. I think the store owner knew exactly what he was doing when he aimed his gun. He knew that the thief wasn't any harm, but shot him anyways, and for that he should pay the price. We need to make an example out of this incident.
ReplyDeleteI understand that the store owner was trying to protect his store and himself, but I also believe that shooting him was going way to far. There were other ways the store owner could have handled this situation that did not lead to anyone's death. I do not think that the store owner should get a sentence that exceeds 20 years in prison, do to the fact that he was trying to protects his store. If the store owner would have called the authorities, maybe all of this could have been prevented.
ReplyDeleteShooting the suspect was not going to far. Duve had no idea if the suspect was a criminal or danger. So he had the right to protect his property and himself.
DeleteDuve clearly did not think before he reacted, especially because the suspect only took beer. There was no justification for Duve to murder that man. It would have been a different story if the suspect was threatning Duve with a weapon. Then there would have been a good reason for him to shoot at the male. There for Duve should be sanctioned for 10-15 years in prison.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Erika, that Duve had no right to take his life over a pack of beer,but I don't believe he should be sentenced anymore than 10 years. I say this ,because this individual had no right stealing from this the store,but i'm not saying shot everyone that steals from a store.That part as I stated before should have been handled way differently.
DeleteI agree with you Erika, the man only took beer that's not worth taking his life away. I to would have understand if he was being threatened, but he wasn't so now he has to go to prison.
DeleteI agree with you because Duve had no probable cause to shoot the suspect. He should have called the police, so they could handle the situation another way. That way he wouldn't be in this scandal.
DeleteI agree with you but only to a certain extent. Yes, Duve did react without thinking but then again it was probably a rush for him. We have to keep in mind that he is a 52 year old man who was probably scared for his life. Now I do agree with you 100% that the gun shouldn't have been used at all unless the suspect had a weapon on him that really would endanger Duve's life. Duve shouldn't have gone as far as to killing the 39 year old man who was stealing a case of beer. Who really knows for sure though? Maybe me or you or any other one of our peers would've reacted the same way. Therefore, I do not believe that Duve should be sanctioned 10 to 15 years in prison but 1 to 3 years in jail with parole.
DeleteDuve was trying to protect himself from danger. If he didn't duve might of got shot. He was also scared he didn't knew what to do
ReplyDeleteYes I know he was protecting him self but there still was no reason for him to kill the man and take his life what if someone forced him to go still the beer. How would that store owner feel now that’s wrong now there is no way to find out the real reason he wanted to steal the beer. Yes there should be rules to store owners not to just take innocent peoples life's.
DeleteI agree with you Joe. Duve should't have used the gun and shot the suspect unless he was also armed. His life didn't seem to be in danger as far as to going to killing the man. If I was Duve I would've at least shot him in the leg so he wouldn't get away with the stolen beer case. Now I don't think this case needs to end with Duve in prison. He is an elder man and probably panicked and reacted too soon. If I were the judge I would give him maybe 1-3 years in jail with parole.
DeleteIn my perspective I do think Mr. Duve deserves to be put into prison .Due to the fact that he shot and killed an individual who's only crime was stealing some beer. My only concern is should we all over look the fact that he was stealing this beer because he was shot and killed.It's hard for me to say ,but with the facts provided I don't believe Duve's actions were responsible. It seemed to me he acted upon emotions rather than his common sense which should have told him to call upon the authorities. Also I don't believe Duve was in any kind of danger so their was no need to shoot at the suspect . My only issue with this is that we still need to look at the fact that he was stealing something from Rodney's store .No,it doesn't make it right for Mr. Duve to take an individuals life over beer. My issue with this is does it make it ok for anyone to just walk into a store and take as you please .
ReplyDeleteI agree, he should have thought with his common sense then his emotions. He didn't listen to his common sense and it would seem like he will be spending time in jail for killing a shoplifter.
DeleteI think that the store owner should not have shot the person who was robbing him. He was only stealing beer which is not worth going to prison for. I believe that Duve had no reason to shoot the guy for beer. I also believe that maybe he wanted to make sure that nothing like that happens again.
ReplyDeleteYes , but Duve was only protecting what was his. All though the right thing he could have done was call the police , there was no need to make a big deal over beer.
DeleteI agree with you because he had no right shooting the suspect. You're also right when you said that shooting a person for a box of beer isn't worth going to prison. I also agree that he was probably trying to prove a point to the other people who would try to do that as well.
DeleteIn my perspective Mr. Duve should be put into prison. He could have waited before he shot the victim. I understand he probably was trying to do what was right, but was the victim armed? We can't overlook the fact that someone was stealing beer, but Duve's actions led him to be the suspect instead of a victim. Duve could have easily called the police and let them handle the situation instead of taking matters into his own hands. Mr. Duve could have been a free man and the dead victim could have been behind bars.
ReplyDeleteDuve’s actions were not reasonable because of the fact that the 39 year old man was not a threat to him. Duve might have thought that he was in danger so he shot the man. Hence now he is being arrested for the actions that he made. He could have done something another than shot the man.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. Mr. Duve was not in danger, so he did the wrong thing, for shooting the suspect. Duve might go behind bars.
DeleteIn my perspective I think that Duve was in all his right to shoot that man for stealing from his property. All though the consequence for the suspect was death , that I don't think was right. Murder is never the answer to anything as far as it being self defence. Yes Duve must have reacted In the heat of the moment, but only because he was trying to protect his property. If I was in Duve's shoes I would have done the same , with the exception of murder.
ReplyDeleteI strongly agree with you Maria. Duve could have shot the man in the arm or leg to insure that the man would not pass. The whole case would have been better if the incident would have not been concluded in murder. Now Duve faces prison time for something he thought was right.
DeleteIf this is all the details to the crime then it was not right for Mr. Duve to shoot and kill a men over a case of beer I understand its his store and his beer but the cops could have caught him. Unless the 39 year old suspect had a gun or was using force against the 52 year old Mr.Duve. Also Mr.Duve was a 52 year old man who was probaly scared for his life, honestly you don't what the man STEALING BEER has in his pocket either a gun or pocket knife. Mr.Duve was probably scared for his life and panicked and as he did he took his gun out and shot the man. But I don't think they where right in arresting the owner Mr.Duve because it was his store, and he could have been in danger of his life.
ReplyDeleteMr.Duve should have not made the choice to shoot the suspect. That brought many consequences towards him. I believe Mr. Duve should have a sentence in prison but just the minimum. It is really frustrating that people go in and steal items from a person. Mr. Duve was not protecting himself but expressing his anger towards the situation.
ReplyDeleteHe sure indeed expressed his anger to the man who stole beer from him, But in disagreeing with you, he shouldn't be sentenced to prison. More likely serving jail time.
DeleteI have to disagree with you Zaira. I think that Mr. Duve was indeed trying to protect his property and himself. If the suspect had not went in and tryed stealing the beer, he probably would not have shot the man in the first place. The main reason store owners have guns at their store is in case they feel threatened by someone who is trying to harm them or take their possessions away unlawfully. I believe that is what happened in this situation.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI understand why Duve did such thing but that's not acceptable. He could have done something different, his life wasn't in danger. There was no reason to shoot him. I'm not saying what the suspect did was right because it wasn't but Duve should have thought twice about pulling the trigger. Duve should get 25 years in prison without parole.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Ana. The store owner should have thought of another way to stop the suspect. Duve should be behind bars.
DeleteI agree with you because he did should not have shot him and risked it. Now he has to suffer with the consequences.
DeleteJustice Gonzalez.
I believe the same thing yes I understand that the owner might have been scared , but I that poor man now is dead now his family has no father his wife lost a great man just one night were he made a stupid mistake. Like I said there should be rules to were store owners have certain ways to protect them selves form robbers.
DeleteI also agree with you and the sentence you think he should be assigned. Duve murdered that man and 25 years in prison should be the least the court should assign him. There was was no threat toward the store owners life therefore his action were unreasonable.
Deletedon't think what Duve did was reasonable. If the man was arme then yes I would have pulled out my weapon. Other wise I would have called the police or either tried talking things put with the man instead of just shooting him. Now most likely Duve is going to be charged with murder because I don't think there was any need for shooting him if he wasn't armed or was trying to harm him.
ReplyDeleteFor my perspective, Mr. Duve's actions were not reasonable because he did not have to shoot the suspect. Although the suspect was trying to steal a case of beer, the store owner could have just called the authorities to handle the situation. I feel that Mr. Duve should spend sometime behind bars, for shooting a suspect that did not threaten the shooter. If the suspect did threaten the store owner, then it would be okay to shoot the suspect. Mr. Duve may see himself behind bars.
ReplyDeleteI agree, Rodney didn't have to shot the suspect if he wasn't possibly in any danger at all. If the case was that the suspect had a gun on him it would make sense to defend himself.
DeleteMr. Duve should have handled the situation differently. My perspective about this case is that he should have allowed authorities to handle the situation instead of taking matters into his own hands. The suspect did not enter the store armed which could not have made Mr. Duve fear for his life Therefore, he had No right to shoot and kill a man. Beer is not that expensive it's not worth taking a life. With the technology we have today police could have found the suspect and made him pay for his crime.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that he should have made the decision he made. Someone stealing beer from your store is a crime but does not mean that you should just take out a gun and shoot him and risk your job and life by shooting him and killing him over it. I really think that Duve should have just called the authorities and should have followed their instructions instead of just instantly reacting to it and shooting the man. He did not think before he made the choice he made. It is pretty obvious. I think he should get up to 15 - 20 years in maximum security. He made a very idiosyncratic decision.
ReplyDeleteJustice Gonzalez.
I'm very indecisive about this topic. In a way I agree with the shooting and at the same time I don't. The reason as to why I agree is because Duve most likely assumed that the man had a weapon and felt threated, or he was just tired of burglaries in his store and felt to take matters in his own hands instead of calling the police. We have to think about how Duve felt at the time which was threated, scared, and a numerous amounts of other emotions. In the case that he did call the police he most likely assumed that they would take a long time to where he felt that it was his life or the store.
ReplyDeleteThe reason as to why I disagree is because we should never take matter's into our own hands because we will never know the out come until it's too late. He should had made sure that his life was indeed danger in order to kill the man. I mean owning a whole convenient store, a case of beer which is what? Twenty dollars verses a whole store, that should be nothing Duve should have let the man go then called the police.
The store owner did not need to deadly force to stop the suspect. The store owner did not need to deadly force to stop the suspect. I believe surveillance would have caught the 39 year old man and instead of shooting him, Duve should have called the police and reported the robbery. I believe he was probably tired of people stealing items from his store so he took matters to his own. My issue with this is does it make it ok for anyone to just walk into a store and take as you please .
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that Rodney James Duve’s actions were reasonable because he shot and killed the suspect. The suspect had no weapon on him at the time of the incident. The suspect just went in and grabbed the beers then tried to flee. The store owner should be charged with murder for killing the suspect for no reason whatsoever.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you Jose, Rodney Duve's actions were not reasonable. The suspect had no weapon, nor the suspect do any harm. Duve should be charged with murder for killing the suspect.
DeleteIn my perspective, Duve made a wrong choice to end that person's life. Even if that person was attempting to steal his property, that isn't an critical situation to use an firearm and kill him. What he should have done was to call the police and hold him down while the cops arrive, but because of that reckless act of " self-defense", he's now charged with a 1st degree felony of murder.
ReplyDeleteI disagree , this is Duves store. Yes taking his life was a harsh thing to do but he doesn't know what the suspect is capable of doing . Who in the right mind would try stoping a thief until cops come ? Come on now !
DeleteI believe that the stores owner was wrong for taking that mans life he should have caught the man and called the cops. Now maybe if the robber had a gun and the store owners life was in danger then yes I would seen him protecting his life. So yes the cops were right for arresting the stores owner he should have never shot the man. There should be laws that has to do with stores owner protection there should be certain limits to where the owners have certain rights to protection instead of taking someone's life.
ReplyDeleteI, agreeing with you, there should be laws within the store owners as well as the limits of protecting their store. It was certainly wrong of Mr.Duve killing someone
DeleteI agree with you Joe, a life is more precious than a case of beer and Duve's reputation as the owner. A weapon should be only used if there is some type of threat in the situation but, in this situation, reporting it to the police would have been a better decision.
DeleteOf this circumstance I believe that what Mr.Duve did wasn't the right thing to do. His actions in shooting and killing of a man who just wanted beer. I believe that Mr.Duve should be in jail for at least half a year or so. He wasn't even protecting himself so what kind of mindset is up of shooting someone running away stealing beer? Its reasonable enough to just call the police and tell them about what the now diseased man was driving.
ReplyDeleteI don't agree with you. Duve was protecting himself in a way that no one else could. And by calling the cops only gave that person that was trying to steal the beer time to get away and not know what was really going on.
DeleteI for one believe that Duve's actions were unreasonable because he was not in any type of harms way for him to pull out a gun. If I were in his position I would have called the cops about the robbery and let them handle it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. Duve had so many other options on catching the suspect instead of shooting him but he just didn't think about it enough. He was not being harmed by the suspect nor was the suspect armed. He just acted out so quickly and made a huge mistake which cause a man to be killed over a case of beer. I too think he should have called the cops and let them handle the situation instead of himself.
DeleteI'm kind of back and forth with this situation . Duve was only doing what a store owner would do . He never knew if the suspect had a gun or not . In reality it's only beer ? He wasn't try to steal money . So I do see why he was arrested , but I don't believe he needs any prison time or jail time . It was an incident . He was only protecting his store . Which is his property .
ReplyDeleteI agree with you completely. It is only beer and he shouldn't have jail time or prison time.
DeleteI am still back and forth with the situation because he was protecting himself but also his store he didn't know if the suspect would of had a gun or not. In all reality it's only beer but he felt that he had to protect what was his and everything. I don't believe he needs prison or jail time.
ReplyDeleteI personally think that Rodney Duve’s actions were very unreasonable. He should have thought before shooting the man. A case of beer is not important or valuable and someone should not have been shot and killed over one. There could have possibly been other ways on stopping the suspect. I do not think Duve was protecting himself. The suspect was unarmed and not harming anyone. There is many other ways that he could have protected himself instead of shooting a harmless individual. I think Duve should have just told him to stop or call the police and he deserves what consequences he is going to face.
ReplyDeleteAfter getting the facts from the link above, I believe that Duve's actions were unreasonable. The 39 year old man had attempted to steal a case of beer which is bad enough but I don't really see him as a potential threat. According to the story the thief had no weapon on him, therefore I see no reason why Duve should've shot him. I do understand the Duve is a 52 year old man going against a 39 year old BUT unless the suspect had been armed with any dangerous weapon Duve shouldn't have shot him. I don't seem to believe he was in any potential danger to go as far as taking those actions.
ReplyDeleteThere are other ways of defending yourself rather than just going for the kill. In this situation, that was not acceptable. There was no reason he should've fired at the individual. It was just beer the individual was fleeing with. He was not harming him in anyway, therefore, yes, he deserves jail time, no excuses.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, there was no reason for Duve to fire a gun at the individual. The individual did no harm. So yes, Duve deserves to be in prison.
DeleteI think Rodney actions where reasonable. He had no clue if the suspect had a weapon on him or not. Also he had no clue if the suspect was going to harm him. So he did right for protecting himself.
ReplyDeleteI disagree. If the suspect was running away from Duve, then he probably did not have a weapon on him. Also, Duve could have resolved the situation by reporting it to the police instead of shooting him for something worth less than 15$.
DeleteI do not think Duve’s actions was reasonable. Yes, Duve was protecting himself, but that was not right for Duve to shoot the man. It is just a case of beer. If the suspect had a weapon, then yes Duve's actions would have been reasonable.
ReplyDeleteWhile it looks like it was reasonable reaction to shoot the suspect it doesn't look well if he dies from the gunshot wound. Rodney shouldn't have shot the man because the suspect wasn't causing him any harm. I don't think the suspect would really have thought he would get shot for a case of beer.
ReplyDeleteI agree he shouldn't shot the suspect . I honestly think Rodney was just scared maybe that's why he did it. Either way he should have just thought before he shot.
DeleteI don't agree with you, I think that he made the right or correct choice by doing what he did.
DeleteA stolen case of beer is not a legitimate reason for someone to loose their life. I do believe the store owner might have reacted but murder is no mistake, and Duve murdered that man. Whether the man was stealing or not there was no threat present toward the store owner therefore the was no valid reason for the store store owner to have opened fire. This means the store owner was careless and his only concern was to not loosing a few bucks off a couple of beers. This is why I think the store owner should face the consequences and be charged with the death of the 39 year old man.
ReplyDeleteI agree that he was not thinking just reacting to open fire on the man.The owner should get sentenced more time to death of man.
DeleteI agree with you Jose , the store owner was completely wrong for opening fire on the suspect. The situation could have been handled differently and that's why I agree that Duve should be charged with the man's death
DeleteYes, the suspect was wrong for attempting to take a case of beer but, Duve should have just reported the man instead of taking his life. I would have understood Duve's actions if the man had threatened him in some type of way. He ran with the merchandise without causing any harm so I agree with the charges on Duve. A life isn't worth being taken away for some case of beer that also caused him some type of sentence for killing the man.
ReplyDeleteYou could not have said it any better crystal. Duve's actions were unnecessary towards the man if he wasn't causing any harm.
DeleteI somewhat agree with what your saying, but I do not agree with you saying that he should have done something else. what if he didn't take the procations, he could be the one did.
DeleteWell I honestly think Duve's actions was unreasonable. I get the fact that Duve was trying to protect his store but there's other ways to do that as well instead shooting and individual. I think he should have thought before he did it because now he has to do the time and i am pretty sure that is the last thing he wanted. Killing someone is not always the answer. Justice can be served some other way not always by death.
ReplyDeleteDuve did the wrong thing by killing the man.He should get sentenced for his acts on the man.
DeleteI do believe that the man did the right thing, I strongly believe that if I would have been in his shoes I would have don't the same thing. I do not think that he should be charged with any type of charge, the suspect had gone in there to steal and all the man did was protect what was his. He did the right thing. In the end the man was only a victim.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, if I were in his shoes I'd do the same thing that would have been my first reaction. Better to lose a criminal than to lose money that you need.
DeleteI believe that Duve was quick to react but didn't think about what he was doing. He should have thought about what to do instead of grabbing the gun and shooting him. There were other non-lethal things he could have done to resolve the situation since he was not a threat to Duve.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Since the man was not posing as a threat to Duve, he shouldn't have used lethal force on him. He should have called the police to report the man instead of shooting and killing him.
ReplyDeleteI can see the controversy in this situation. I believe that Duve was trying to protect himself and what he owned. I don't think he shot the suspect with intent to kill him. However, he did indeed kill him. Duve's actions seem reasonable when you see him as the victim getting robbed. But once we find out that he killed the suspect, it makes him the criminal for taking a life away. Hence, I still do believe his actions were reasonable because he was trying to protect himself and his property. Perhaps, he should have shot him in the leg so he could still get EMS to help him and he could be charged for robbery.
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that Duve's reaction to the situation was totally inappropriate. I mean the man was trying to steal a case of beer , so how could Duve feel that his life was in danger. The fact that he was trying to protect his store is totally understandable but this situation could have been handled so many different ways. I do not believe that shooting the man is justifiable at all. Simply because the man was no threat to Duve or the other people.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the store ower Duve was just trying to protect not only himself but other people. And yes I also believe that his actions were really reasonable. He had no chose but to shoot him, he had to find a wayto sstop him other wise he'd be losing money. So yes I think Duve did a good thing
ReplyDeleteI disagree with him having "no other choice". He could have easily contacted authorities before any situation escalated, but he wanted to take matters into his own hands. Protecting the lives of himself and his customers is vital, but we just need more information.
DeleteMany factors are missing for me to indicate whether Duve took the wrong approach in that situation. If the thirty nine year old man was obviously intoxicated or exhibited any signs of attack, or had any visible weapons, then I would justify Duve's actions as an act of defense to safe his own life. Duve should be charged for the murder of the thirty nine year old man, but the sentencing should be based on his perception of the event or any witness that was there.
ReplyDelete