Teenage Robber Dead, Shot by Good Samaritan


PDA






Yoda
October 5, 2012, 07:59 PM
Before the moderators shut this down, saying, "Just because it involves a shooting does not mean it's TR material," please read on.

There are two points in this article relevant to THR members.

First, the good Samaritan went to his car and retrieved a gun to intervene in a robbery, where customers were being held at gunpoint. After shooting both bad guys, the good guy fled the scene. (He later returned.) Although there has been a lot of advice offered on THR about what to do after a shooting, running away before the police show up has never been one of the suggestions.

Second, there may be a sea change that is now reaching even into California. The good guy was described as a "good Samaritan" in the local media. Given the way things go in California, I would have expected the news to label him a "vigilante," especially after he fled the scene.

Here's the link.
http://www.kionrightnow.com/story/19744662/suspected-robber-dead-shot-by-good-samaritan

Let's talk about the wisdom of running off after saving the day, and the wonderment of the good guy being described in complimentary terms. Heck, we could even talk about how much more effectively the good guy could have responded if he was carrying, but maybe not. He did, after all, win the fight.

- - - Yoda

If you enjoyed reading about "Teenage Robber Dead, Shot by Good Samaritan" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
scaatylobo
October 5, 2012, 08:11 PM
I plead not guilty.

I quote Sgt Shultz from Hogans Hero's [ are any that old ? ].

"I see nothing".

This is the kind of discussion that is held in PRIVATE among very close friends = period.

Sky
October 5, 2012, 08:13 PM
Based on the facts of this case, to include video surveillance footage of the incident, no charges are being sought against the Good Samaritan at this time.

Like you I thought the article was bias for a change in the right direction. If the perps were Ms-13 or some other gang ( which is unknown to us) it might have been a good idea to leave until the LEOs got there. We will have to see what happens next.

Owen Sparks
October 5, 2012, 08:26 PM
Never talk to the police. Nothing good can come of it as ANYTHING you say can be held against you in a court of law.

Manco
October 5, 2012, 08:27 PM
First, the good Samaritan went to his car and retrieved a gun to intervene in a robbery, where customers were being held at gunpoint. After shooting both bad guys, the good guy fled the scene. (He later returned.) Although there has been a lot of advice offered on THR about what to do after a shooting, running away before the police show up has never been one of the suggestions.

I'll say, as those who run away are often presumed to be guilty of a crime, but thankfully there appears to be understanding and benefit of the doubt given to him here.

Second, there may be a sea change that is now reaching even into California. The good guy was described as a "good Samaritan" in the local media. Given the way things go in California, I would have expected the news to label him a "vigilante," especially after he fled the scene.

Well, just because most of the politicians and maybe the media in some regions of California are rabidly anti-gun doesn't mean that the whole state is! I've lived in San Diego County and other parts of Southern California for most of my life, and rarely if ever have I seen anti-gun news reports regarding justified shootings. Juries here seem to be pretty supportive of the right to self-defense, too, on the whole.

Let's talk about the wisdom of running off after saving the day,

There is none, and it's a good thing that he came back before the police went after him. :uhoh:

and the wonderment of the good guy being described in complimentary terms.

That's always good to see wherever the incident took place.

Heck, we could even talk about how much more effectively the good guy could have responded if he was carrying, but maybe not. He did, after all, win the fight.

One can always improve one's chances of winning the fight by learning from the mistakes of others, regardless of the success of their outcomes--success is no justification for skipping lessons. This seems more like a discussion for the ST&T forum, though.

Gato Montés
October 5, 2012, 08:29 PM
If it weren't for the potential legal fallout that could arise from fleeing I'd recommend it all the time. You always see trainers telling us to check 360 degrees after we shoot because wolves travel in packs, extracting yourself from the scene until police arrive seems a good idea.

EDIT to add; I meant to say that you should let the police know the situation as soon as possible, let them know you left and you're waiting for the police to arrive before you return.

Double Naught Spy
October 5, 2012, 08:35 PM
Egress to a location of safety is strategically sound. That may be on site or not.

mister_murphy
October 5, 2012, 10:52 PM
Never talk to the police. Nothing good can come of it as ANYTHING you say can be held against you in a court of law.

Ummm, Never? That is wrong. Even the U.S. Supreme court has said so.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1470.pdf

BERGHUIS, WARDEN v. THOMPKINS

Which basically said a defendant must "invoke" his right to remain silent unambiguously. Keep in mind this case was about a defendant who kept silent for around 3 hours, but there again, you statement was to "never talk to the police", right?


Frankly, as far as the basics, a person should, and in some instances must say or state certain things to law enforcement, such as, I.D. themselves [also required in some states by law and case law], state such things if needed like, "I invoke my right to remain silent" or in the event of a self defense incident should say, "I was a victim and I defended myself."

MachIVshooter
October 5, 2012, 11:21 PM
Never talk to the police. Nothing good can come of it as ANYTHING you say can be held against you in a court of law.

The most important words in this thread.

I saw a very good (and very long) video of a former attorney/current law professor and a sheriff explaining this very articulately. Things you may say that you couldn't possibly see as reflecting a negative light on you most definitely can.

That doesn't mean you should be rude to the officers; Just say something like "I'm really shaken up right now and need some time to clear my head think before making a statement". After all, you do have a right not to incriminate yourself, which can happen even when you're innocent.

Here's that video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

SouthernYankee
October 5, 2012, 11:52 PM
Always willingly identify yourself to the police, offer your firearm that was used in self-defense and say nothing more than I wish to speak with my Attorney BEFORE making any statements. Remember, the police will ALWAYS try to get you to speak because their job is to investigate, just give them nothing more. Your Attorney should be the first to hear your story!

r1derbike
October 5, 2012, 11:58 PM
I also saw that classroom video and agree with it, totally.

Zoogster
October 6, 2012, 12:02 AM
This is actually the norm in California if someone is shot while robbing a convenience store on video camera, clearing holding people at gunpoint.


You are more in the clear defending the local 7-11 than just about anywhere else. The home is a close second to such a business.


Contrary to bad California gun laws, California has had better self defense laws than most of the country for decades. It was not until recently that portions of the country have started to catch up or exceed California self defense laws in a business or the home (And the majority of the country is still behind especially concerning a business.)
Something better than Castle Doctrine for the home has existed a long time. The presumption that anyone who unlawfully enters a home intends harm to the occupants warranting deadly force (unless they are related or live there) has been California law for quite some time. Going well beyond no duty to retreat, still seen in many states with better gun laws.

Zoogster
October 6, 2012, 12:10 AM
Here's that video:


If that is the one I think it is then it is for the most part accurate.

What you say can and will be used against you, but what you say cannot be used for you.
What you say that benefits you is 'heresay' and not evidence at all in court. What you say that can in any way be twisted against you is evidence in court.
Your words can incriminate you, but cannot exonerate you.

So nothing you say will benefit you in court, but may hurt you.


The only way what you say can help is by directing the investigation so it does not miss important clues.
For example be sure that person walking away that saw everything gets stopped and talked to. Be sure they don't miss that other guy's weapon over there. Etc
Surprisingly obvious things can be missed and nobody is taking your word for it months later at the trial. If that evidence is not seen as evidence and preserved originally it may or may not be something people in court will believe even existed.


But as the video shows, just a cop remembering incorrectly what you said can cause problems, pinning the word of law enforcement against you, the suspect. While if you said nothing they can't even recall what was said wrong.
You could say things that clearly benefit you, and then it gets written down or remembered differently, but is still considered your statement.

Double Naught Spy
October 6, 2012, 07:25 AM
First, the good Samaritan went to his car and retrieved a gun to intervene in a robbery, where customers were being held at gunpoint

The article doesn't say this. It just says a gun was retrieved from the car, but not where the Good Sam was at the time he realized there was a robbery in progress. He very well may have been at his car already, leaning on the bumper, against the door, etc. He could have been sitting in his car, but not carrying his gun on his person. He was not (nor did you say) that he was inside during the robbery.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=news/local/south_bay&id=8837731

This link has him in the parking lot which is where his car was. Neither state that he was out of his car before the robbery was observed.

The employees at a Salinas restaurant were being held up at gun point when police say a 36-year-old man in the parking lot who knew one of the employees came to their rescue.

"He was concerned for their safety and as a result of that he removed his legally posed firearm from his vehicle, entered the business with a loaded firearm, and reacted to the threat," said Salinas Police Cmdr. Dave Crabill.

Kleanbore
October 6, 2012, 08:22 AM
Posted by Zoogster: The only way what you say can help is by directing the investigation so it does not miss important clues.
For example be sure that person walking away that saw everything gets stopped and talked to. Be sure they don't miss that other guy's weapon over there. Etc
Surprisingly obvious things can be missed and nobody is taking your word for it months later at the trial. If that evidence is not seen as evidence and preserved originally it may or may not be something people in court will believe even existed.

Well put indeed.

The video linked in Post #9 contains some great advice--for most kinds of criminal cases, in which "anything you say" can be used to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt that it was you who did the deed. But--and don't ever forget this--in a self defense case, you will have to say that it was you who did the deed, and that won't be something that the state has to prove. Rather , it will be up to ou to provide evidence that what you did was excusable, or in today's more common usage justified, under the law. Absent such evidence, you wil not prevail, and once lost, evidence will not be available to serve your purpose.

We've been over his many times, and we have a sticky on the subject.

See this (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=589272). The first post was provided by our moderator Frank Ettin, an attorney who was known as fiddletown at the time. For those who seem to need video lectures, there are two of them linked in the thread.

Sying too much to the police, or to the media, is a very poor idea, but saying nothing after a self defense case can help seal your fate.

Kenneth
October 6, 2012, 09:13 AM
Contrary to bad California gun laws, California has had better self defense laws than most of the country for decades. It was not until recently that portions of the country have started to catch up or exceed California self defense laws in a business or the home (And the majority of the country is still behind especially concerning a business.)
Something better than Castle Doctrine for the home has existed a long time. The presumption that anyone who unlawfully enters a home intends harm to the occupants warranting deadly force (unless they are related or live there) has been California law for quite some time. Going well beyond no duty to retreat, still seen in many states with better gun laws.
Ditto with NY State. Article 35 "Defense of Justification" even allows the use of deadly force against fleeing criminals (armed robbers, rapists, etc. Please do not pop any caps at shoplifters or jaywalkers).

Before the moderators shut this down, saying, "Just because it involves a shooting does not mean it's TR material," please read on.
IMHO a discussion of the circumstances in which a person may legally use deadly physical force has a place somewhere on THR. But IANAM (Hey! New acronym!)
It is just as wise to know the laws of the several states concerning the use deadly force, as it is to know the gun laws.

hso
October 6, 2012, 09:39 AM
That's an amazingly lucky individual and I wouldn't expect anyone else to think that leaving the scene of a shooting would result in anything other than some jail time, if for nothing else, simply leaving. As pointed out the last thing you want is to have to shoot someone and nearly as bad is do anything that causes people to question the justification for the shooting and assume your guilt.

It is outstanding to see the locals and the news treat him as a hero, but I think that as outsiders we burden ourselves with prejudices about a locale. I'd like to hear from California members to see whether they find the treatment of the good samaritan exceptional or not.

OTOH, the fact that we see this new piece outside the local news area it allows us to circulate it with the observation that the OP has given. "WOW, even in anti gun California where you'd assume a good samaritan would be painted as a fiend for using a gun to save someone else's life the police and the news are recognizing him as a hero. Perhaps the lies the antis have tried to shove down everyone's throats all these years are not poisoning people's minds as they's hoped!".

SharpsDressedMan
October 6, 2012, 10:20 AM
Running away, DIRECTLY TO TALK TO YOUR ATTORNEY, should not be frowned upon. After contact with your attorney, he can negotiate for you to contact the police with him present.

Kleanbore
October 6, 2012, 10:30 AM
Posted by SharpsDressedMan: Running away, DIRECTLY TO TALK TO YOUR ATTORNEY, should not be frowned upon.But it is. If one has to run away for the sake of safety, run to a police station.

In combination with other evidence, flight will be looked upon as an indication of guilt.

After contact with your attorney, he can negotiate for you to contact the police with him present.

If one has "run away", there is nothing for one's attormey to "negotiate".

JohnBT
October 6, 2012, 11:05 AM
Sure there is, bail.

Kleanbore
October 6, 2012, 11:21 AM
^^^

Yeah.

ColtPythonElite
October 6, 2012, 11:26 AM
The Samaritan better hope the prosecuter does start looking at the case with Proverbs 28:1 in the back of his mind. It goes something like: The wicked fleeath....

Kenneth
October 6, 2012, 12:21 PM
We practice, practice, practice, and practice some more. Build up good muscle memory so that we can automatically pull out our firearm, aim, shoot, and reload if need be. So we can be reasonably sure of how we will react in a situation. But what about afterward when we're done with everything we've practiced doing, and we are still in a highly stressed state of mind. How can we be reasonably sure of what we will do then? Maybe we should also practice holstering our firearm and pulling out a cell phone and calling 911,or rendering first aid. Anything that will develope an automatic reaction, and give us time to start thinking clearly again.

Neverwinter
October 6, 2012, 12:21 PM
The Samaritan better hope the prosecuter does start looking at the case with Proverbs 28:1 in the back of his mind. It goes something like: The wicked fleeath....
While the mention of Samaritan does have a certain literary context, theocracy is hardly a desirable outcome.

NavyLCDR
October 6, 2012, 12:32 PM
Always willingly identify yourself to the police, offer your firearm that was used in self-defense and say nothing more than I wish to speak with my Attorney BEFORE making any statements. Remember, the police will ALWAYS try to get you to speak because their job is to investigate, just give them nothing more. Your Attorney should be the first to hear your story!

Why offer the firearm? If they want it, let them ask for it. I find it contradictory that you would suggest offering the firearm and then refusing to make a statement in the same sentence.

Fred_G
October 6, 2012, 12:45 PM
Interesting situation. Of course, nobody knows what they might do in a hypothetical situation, but I don't think I would have done what the Good Sam. did in that situation, whether carrying or having a gun in my car.

Unless it was my wife or child in the store, I would have (I think) removed myself to a safe place, and called 911. If I was in the store and carrying, then perhaps I would act differently. The way I see it is that I am not the police. I have a gun to protect me, my family, and to some degree my property. In today's sue happy society, knowingly entering a store that has armed people in it, could result in a situation where I would be unable to, or could not afford to protect my family (in jail, or major legal bills...).

I see many ways that could have gone bad for the Good Sam., hopefully it won't.

Manco
October 6, 2012, 01:09 PM
Egress to a location of safety is strategically sound. That may be on site or not.

Well, in that case he/she could simply have run away and called 911 instead of running into the business and shooting the bad guys first. Once the shooting occurred and the bad guys were presumably down, there probably wasn't any strategic reason to flee--the Samaritan probably just got freaked out at having shot and potentially killed two people.

It is outstanding to see the locals and the news treat him as a hero, but I think that as outsiders we burden ourselves with prejudices about a locale. I'd like to hear from California members to see whether they find the treatment of the good samaritan exceptional or not.

If it was a good shoot, then there would be nothing exceptional about this in San Diego, at least (the region with which I am most familiar). The media doesn't usually call defensive shooters "Good Samaritan" or "hero" but it wouldn't be surprising in cases like this one.

Speaking more in general, although there are many antis here in California--just like everywhere else--culturally things like the Castle Doctrine are so ingrained that most antis here won't speak out against justified cases of defensive shooting (inside or outside of the home). In addition, as far as I can tell, it is really difficult to convict those who shot somebody in defense of self or others of a crime in California. You'll get plenty of media coverage of the outrage of the assailant's family, but generally the defensive shooter walks free anyway, even when there are questions regarding justification (the only reason it went to trial in the first place).

The latter brings up civil lawsuits, from which there is basically no immunity in California, even for justified defensive shootings. This is why California is often not listed as having a Castle Doctrine, even though the right to stand your ground inside your home and shoot anybody who breaks in has been entrenched for generations. There are a lot of stupid laws made by California's anti-gun politicians that may make the state seem anti-gun to some, but that is no reason to believe that the state on the whole and its inhabitants are anti-gun.

Disclaimer: Nothing I've said here should be construed as an excuse to get sloppy or, Heaven forbid, shoot people who don't need to be shot. I'm just saying that aside from its silly gun laws, California is no more anti-gun than most states.

SharpsDressedMan
October 6, 2012, 03:07 PM
In combination with other evidence, flight will be looked upon as an indication of guilt.


Quote:
That is quite an ASSUMPTION, but doesn't have any legal standing that I am aware of. The facts of the INCIDENT will determine guilt or innocence, as presented in the case. Going to the hospital and claiming you needed treatment for extreme stress would even be a totally believable reason for leaving the scene (and contacting your attorney there first). As long as you didn't continue to duck the police, making contact in a resonable poeriod of time is, well, REASONABLE.

Kleanbore
October 6, 2012, 04:28 PM
Posted by SharpsDressedMan: That [(that in combination with other evidence, flight will be looked upon as an indication of guilt)] is quite an ASSUMPTION, but doesn't have any legal standing that I am aware of.Appellate and high court rulings in numerous jurisdictions have established the precedent that evidence of flight may be introduced by the prosecution--for centuries.

There have also been findings that flight alone does not constitute proof of guilt.

The facts of the INCIDENT will determine guilt or innocence, as presented in the case.True, and the fact of flight may well be one of those facts.

Going to the hospital and claiming you needed treatment for extreme stress would even be a totally believable reason for leaving the scene (and contacting your attorney there first).Such a claim, if spurious, can destroy a suspect's credibility.

If there really is such a need, it is far better to let first responders take one to the hospital.

As long as you didn't continue to duck the police, making contact in a resonable poeriod of time is, well, REASONABLE.Do you have a basis for that assertion?

You will be wanted by the police, immediately. Not a good way to start things off.

Casefull
October 6, 2012, 04:48 PM
Law enforcement is best avoided as are the bad guys...getting involved with either group involves many more risks than not. Anyone who thinks the law is about justice has never been involved in the criminal justice system. Said system exists to convict and put people behind bars(it is their JOB). If I knew I did the right thing and could walk away clean I would do it every time. If you are on camera or witnesses that could ID you were present then obviously not. I would still keep my mouth shut and have attorney represent me. You cannot know what motivates the cops or the prosecuting attorney. Ever here of politics?

Friendly, Don't Fire!
October 6, 2012, 05:14 PM
As far as I know, the person who survived will most likely be guilty of First Degree Murder Felony in his buddy's death. When a firearm is used in a felony situation and when one person dies, no matter how, the surviving bad guy gets charged for the murder. That is how I understand the law to be. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong here.

Double Naught Spy
October 6, 2012, 05:37 PM
Why offer the firearm? If they want it, let them ask for it. I find it contradictory that you would suggest offering the firearm and then refusing to make a statement in the same sentence.

You will have to give up the gun and by offering it, you are not intentionally impeding the investigation, attempting to conceal evidence, etc. You are cooperating without surrendering your Miranda right.

Well, in that case he/she could simply have run away and called 911 instead of running into the business and shooting the bad guys first. Once the shooting occurred and the bad guys were presumably down, there probably wasn't any strategic reason to flee--

Uh huh, and probably doesn't help protect you when in fact they turn out to be around or are waiting around the corner and realize their buddies aren't coming out. As noted above, the bad guys you see often aren't the full compliment of the bad guys that may be involved. If you just shot two bad guys, there is actually a good probability of others being present. Do you want to stand around and wait for them? Who will get there first, the bad guys or the cops?

"the good Samaritan went to his car and retrieved a gun to intervene in a robbery"

He was not defending himself. He was playing COP. That is not what Concealed Carry is About.

This is my opinion.

Your opinion is not in accord with self defense laws that allow for the defense of others. In fact, it isn't in accord with lots of folks here who firmly believe in protecting themselves, friends, and loved ones. The Good Sam was protecting a friend working in the business. That isn't playing cop anymore than protecting your spouse who might have been in the business when you weren't and you try to help her would be considered playing cop.

Zoogster
October 6, 2012, 08:56 PM
Mr Rogers said:
He was not defending himself. He was playing COP. That is not what Concealed Carry is About.



The truth is that protecting a third party is much easier and more likely to be effective than protecting yourself. You can act with an element of surprise, while when defending yourself you often are closely watched and have little element of surprise unless you get lucky.

As a result someone that witnesses you getting victimized is more likely to successfully save your hide and prevent your injury than you would be trying to save yourself.


In a situation like in the OP where the good samaritan both knew a victim, and it was an obvious person in a business holding people at gunpoint, it is very unlikely he is misinterpreting what is going on.


Now there is very real and adequate selfish reasons not to get involved. But they are to reduce trouble for yourself, not because they are actually the better outcome overall.


If it was possible to sign a pact that insured any armed person that witnessed you being victimed would intervene, as long as you agreed to do the same for another, you would be much safer overall than you are providing for your own defense. Because when you have someone paying full attention to you, victimizing you, who is armed with a firearm, it is a lot easier for someone else the bad guy is not paying attention to to save you than it is for you to save yourself.

Manco
October 6, 2012, 09:04 PM
Uh huh, and probably doesn't help protect you when in fact they turn out to be around

If there are other bad guys inside the business (fairly common) and your goal was to protect the good guys, then running away defeats the purpose. If, on the other hand, your goal was to avoid bad guys for your own personal safety (wouldn't blame you), then you should not have entered the business in the first place. I'm not convinced that running into battle to save people and then running away after you've won makes strategic sense--most likely the Samaritan just freaked out, which is an emotional rather than strategic action. :)

or are waiting around the corner and realize their buddies aren't coming out.

If that is the case (again, fairly common), then you should have everybody take cover and wait inside for them. If you run outside, then even if you don't get shot, you'll leave the people you were trying to protect defenseless.

Ragnar Danneskjold
October 6, 2012, 09:11 PM
I think it's important to ask yourself with every action "is this what a guilty bad guy would do?" and be aware that the police are asking the same questions.
If you act in ways that make you look like a criminal, police are far more likely to look at you in the same way.

Manco
October 6, 2012, 10:09 PM
"the good Samaritan went to his car and retrieved a gun to intervene in a robbery"

He was not defending himself. He was playing COP. That is not what Concealed Carry is About.

This is my opinion.

He didn't have to intervene, but at the same time he wasn't playing cop. Regular citizens have the right to defend the lives of others using lethal force if necessary, and they even have the right to make arrests under certain circumstances (California allows more latitude than many states). The latter may be inadvisable in the vast majority of cases and is not what concealed carry is intended for, but the former is definitely what CC is about: defending lives that need defending.

By the way, while we're on the subject, take a look at California Penal Codes 197 (justifiable homicide) and 198.5 (basically the Castle Doctrine), which seem to date back to the Old West ;):

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199

By the letter, that's pretty lenient. :scrutiny: And from what I've seen, common law (i.e. case history) in this state has always reflected this. Defense must be proportionate and vengeance is not allowed, of course, but California is in actuality a stand-your-ground state. Although this is not explicitly stated in the Penal Code, it has been upheld in the cases in which the subject has come up--there is no duty to retreat here, even when outside of your home. Does anybody find this surprising at all?

Now, I'm not saying that trying to avoid bloodshed is a bad idea--that's what I'd do, if possible, but the point is that California law has incorporated ideas like Castle Doctrine and standing your ground from the beginning, and still has them.

Double Naught Spy
October 6, 2012, 10:10 PM
If that is the case (again, fairly common), then you should have everybody take cover and wait inside for them. If you run outside, then even if you don't get shot, you'll leave the people you were trying to protect defenseless.

Did you see the business? Not much cover and easily entered. The bad guys left. Who is to say they won't return with buddies?

I think it is great that you use post situation omnipotence, but the Good Sam did what he thought best at the time and for his safety. The best part was, he was legal in doing so. The others could have left as well. Unlike the supposed oriental claims, just because you save a life once does not make you responsible for them forever.

As ever, the best defense is to not be there.

Warp
October 6, 2012, 10:27 PM
Interesting situation. Of course, nobody knows what they might do in a hypothetical situation, but I don't think I would have done what the Good Sam. did in that situation, whether carrying or having a gun in my car.

Unless it was my wife or child in the store, I would have (I think) removed myself to a safe place, and called 911. If I was in the store and carrying, then perhaps I would act differently. The way I see it is that I am not the police. I have a gun to protect me, my family, and to some degree my property. In today's sue happy society, knowingly entering a store that has armed people in it, could result in a situation where I would be unable to, or could not afford to protect my family (in jail, or major legal bills...).

I see many ways that could have gone bad for the Good Sam., hopefully it won't.

See my signature.

If it's my wife or child in mortal danger I hope that everybody doesn't think and act as you do, understandable as it may be.

xXxplosive
October 6, 2012, 10:42 PM
Zorro always ran away..........

Manco
October 6, 2012, 10:47 PM
I think it is great that you use post situation omnipotence,

Quite the contrary, I was trying to make as few assumptions about the scenario as possible. It's just difficult to make a reasonable case for unnecessarily entering harm's way for a purpose and then to abandon that purpose because of the potential danger involved--danger that is no more and quite possibly less than the initial danger. :scrutiny:

By the way, I think you meant "omniscience" rather than "omnipotence," and no, I don't think I know everything about what happened, in hindsight or otherwise.

but the Good Sam did what he thought best at the time and for his safety.

There are a lot of possibilities, and I merely pointed out one that seemed likely, given what little we know.

The best part was, he was legal in doing so. The others could have left as well.

Legal does not always run in parallel with wise--once the police start eyeballing you suspiciously, they can make things difficult for you in court, especially if unexpected factors are involved. And tactically, I'm not convinced that going outside makes you safer than staying inside--for example, the bad guys or their buddies might be trying to escape, but if they see you come out of the building, then they might shoot you (out of vengeance or fear).

Unlike the supposed oriental claims, just because you save a life once does not make you responsible for them forever.

That's far too broad for this topic. If the Samaritan cared enough to risk his life to save these people from the imminent danger of armed robbers in this instance, it would be strange for him to abandon them right afterward because of the potential danger of additional armed robbers (your hypothetical scenario). At the very least, it does not seem logical, which indicates to me that his reaction after shooting the robbers may have been irrational or emotional, as opposed to strategic. That's understandable, but it's still less than ideal.

As ever, the best defense is to not be there.

But the Samaritan did go there by choice, and the question is why he left so quickly. I don't think that he should get into any legal trouble for it, but it is generally best to avoid arousing the suspicion of the police if possible, even when you've done nothing wrong or illegal.

Zorro always ran away..........

That's because he was usually saving people from the evil police, and obviously needed to hide from the law. Did the Samaritan in question here have a practical reason to hide from the law, or are you being facetious? ;)

Warp
October 6, 2012, 10:49 PM
Quite the contrary, I was trying to make as few assumptions about the scenario as possible. It's just difficult to make a reasonable case for unnecessarily entering harm's way for a purpose and then to abandon that purpose because of the potential danger involved--danger that is no more and quite possibly less than the initial danger. :scrutiny:

Whoa...how do you figure the purpose is abandoned by tactically redeploying to another location after the immediate threat is neutralized??

:scrutiny:

Zoogster
October 6, 2012, 11:00 PM
I also know the press can report things strangely sometimes. Perhaps the shooter called police or left and called them, and were then told to come back to the scene.

Both suspects also got away, the good samaritan really had no way of knowing one would go die and another would be in critical condition. Last he saw of them they were perfectly able and leaving. Armed angry people know that is the last location he was. A location that is quite exposed.

To play devil's advocate I have some experience with gang members in the past and I know if I had a problem in certain areas like the middle of their territory where a percentage of homes around have people that are also members, I would want to leave the scene.
Shooting one and then standing around waiting for the police would be a good way to get shot.
Well I knew certain liqor stores are the prime convenience store for certain gangs, centered in or at the edge of the heart of their territory. There is a good chance that if you had an issue with a robber or especially a team of robbers at such a location it would be members of that gang robbing the closest source of cash.
Gunshots in such a neighborhood tend to result in gang members taking a look and seeing what is going on in their territory. It may be subtle at first, but if they realize one of their own is down that can change very quickly.

Calling police while relocating until they arrive on scene could in fact be quite a smart move in certain bad areas.
That is not to say it could not be used to make you look bad or couldn't play a role in tilting a self-defense into a criminal conviction. It is associated with being dishonest or trying to hide something.
However if they called police while leaving, or quite soon afterwards, it could reduce the negative impact.
In this case the fact that it was all caught on tape and there was a clear robbery with armed robbers pointing a gun or guns at people it is a less discretionary case.
Had it happened on the street corner instead things could have gone differently.
Like I said earlier, in California the self-defense scenarios most likely to be determined self defense almost immediately are those that involve clearly armed criminals holding up convenience stores, jewerly stores, banks, gun stores, or some other customer service based store that deals in cash or valuables with the public, who end up shot in the process.
Because it was one of those situations the potentially less than ideal actions taken after the fact play less role in determining whether charges are filed.

Onward Allusion
October 6, 2012, 11:09 PM
If the perps were Ms-13 or some other gang

If that were the case, the good guy should have left and never returned or talk to anyone about the incident, ever...

Fred_G
October 6, 2012, 11:19 PM
See my signature.

If it's my wife or child in mortal danger I hope that everybody doesn't think and act as you do, understandable as it may be.
I understand. I also wonder how you might think if I missed, or a bullet over penetrated and, God forbid, injured your loved ones.

The guy left, or went to his car to get his gun. He came back. Now, what if that 3rd guy, kinda scruffy looking had a gun? Undercover cop? Me on a weekend on laundry day? Just me, but that is not why I carry a gun. Sorry, with the sue happy world we are in, and so many variables, I am greedy. I want to continue to be able to protect myself and my loved ones. I would have a hard time doing that from jail.

YMMV. And I enjoy these 'hypothetical' mental exercises. I really do see your point, no offense was taken or meant. And I won't say I would not help others, just my initial reaction is to remove myself and loved ones from the danger area, call 911. I am not a cop, not a judge, just a guy with a gun, and some training, looking to get more training.
And Wanting to defend myself and loved ones.

Warp
October 6, 2012, 11:21 PM
I understand. I also wonder how you might think if I missed, or a bullet over penetrated and, God forbid, injured your loved ones.

The guy left, or went to his car to get his gun. He came back. Now, what if that 3rd guy, kinda scruffy looking had a gun? Undercover cop? Me on a weekend on laundry day? Just me, but that is not why I carry a gun. Sorry, with the sue happy world we are in, and so many variables, I am greedy. I want to continue to be able to protect myself and my loved ones. I would have a hard time doing that from jail.

YMMV. And I enjoy these 'hypothetical' mental exercises. I really do see your point, no offense was taken or meant. And I won't say I would not help others, just my initial reaction is to remove myself and loved ones from the danger area, call 911. I am not a cop, not a judge, just a guy with a gun, and some training, looking to get more training.
And Wanting to defend myself and loved ones.

As I said, it's understandable. And not at all uncommon. Returning to the scene is risky in many ways, above and beyond if you were to be armed while in the middle of it.

Manco
October 6, 2012, 11:23 PM
Whoa...how do you figure the purpose is abandoned by tactically redeploying to another location after the immediate threat is neutralized??

:scrutiny:

The original story didn't give the impression that this was a tactical redeployment of all those involved, but rather that the Samaritan fled the scene in fear after the shooting. Obviously the reality may have been different from what was reported, but we're all supposing various hypotheticals here anyway, and that was what I was responding to.

Warp
October 6, 2012, 11:24 PM
The original story didn't give the impression that this was a tactical redeployment of all those involved, but rather that the Samaritan fled the scene in fear after the shooting. Obviously the reality may have been different from what was reported, but we're all supposing various hypotheticals here anyway, and that was what I was responding to.

And the difference between those is...?



BTW: Not sure anybody mentioned this yet, but the article says "a good samaritan associated with one of the victims inside the business"

SharpsDressedMan
October 7, 2012, 01:20 AM
Kleanbore, your not a cop trying to make a cops job easy, are you? :D How about leaving your ID at the scene of the shooting before you leave, along with a note that you WILL be co-operating, soon, but had to go talk to your attorney. The cops always want what the cops want. What's the hurry? You, the shooter, left the scene, and took the GUN with you. Big deal. If you actually plan to eventually co-operate, and don't alter the "evidence", there is no foul....the only thing you have done is stall a piece of the investigation just long enough to confer with an attorney (to protect your rights; a good reason in MY opinion), and nothing was lost except a little time. Time durng which nothing was going to happen except the police trying to get you to talk BEFORE you spoke to an attorney. That is their JOB. And YOUR job is to protect yourself, even from the police, who, by the way, are NOT there to protect you at that point (and who were not there to protect you in the FIRST place, either.)

hardheart
October 7, 2012, 02:07 AM
If the Sam got involved to protect his friend, then why would he leave if he was under the impression that danger was still present or could return? At least drag your friend with you, if your initial involvement was due to concern for their safety.

1. There are bad guys threatening my friend, I will insert myself.
2. Bad guys might show up where I and my friend are, I will extract myself.

Depends on how lawyers try to sell it.

Warp
October 7, 2012, 02:08 AM
If the Sam got involved to protect his friend, then why would he leave if he was under the impression that danger was still present or could return? At least drag your friend with you, if your initial involvement was due to concern for their safety.

Likely response: Because you have now shifted any further attention or attack squarely onto you.

Fred_G
October 7, 2012, 02:14 AM
"If the Sam got involved to protect his friend, then why would he leave if he was under the impression that danger was still present or could return? At least drag your friend with you, if your initial involvement was due to concern for their safety.

1. There are bad guys threatening my friend, I will insert myself.
2. Bad guys might show up where I and my friend are, I will extract myself.

Depends on how lawyers try to sell it."

Hmm, very interesting point. Just my tin foil hat self, but something is screwy with this, as far as the facts we are given.

I am thinking gang affiliation, or I am just crazy. Hard to Monday morning quarterback stuff.

But, stuff like this is a great mental exercise, to think about what you would or might do.

hardheart
October 7, 2012, 02:31 AM
Likely response: Because you have now shifted any further attention or attack squarely onto you.

The question the likely response triggers, for me - In leaving, are you trying to draw danger away from your friend, since you just defended them from that danger, or are you leaving your friend to deal with the danger you fear you just brought upon yourself?

Kleanbore
October 7, 2012, 11:13 AM
Posted by SharpsDressedMan: Kleanbore, your not a cop trying to make a cops job easy, are you? Of course not.

How about leaving your ID at the scene of the shooting before you leave, along with a note that you WILL be co-operating, soon, but had to go talk to your attorney. The cops always want what the cops want. What's the hurry? You, the shooter, left the scene, and took the GUN with you. Big deal.I presume you are joking. A person shoots someone else and takes off? How can anyone know that his first objective is not to get rid of the gun, and his second, to disappear? Is he armed and dangerous? The answer: he is a wanted man.

If you actually plan to eventually co-operate, and don't alter the "evidence", there is no foul....the only thing you have done is stall a piece of the investigation just long enough to confer with an attorney (to protect your rights; a good reason in MY opinion), and nothing was lost except a little time.No one knows your plans but you. To everyone else, you are acting like a guilty person.

And how will anyone know that you did not alter evidence?

Time durng which nothing was going to happen except the police trying to get you to talk BEFORE you spoke to an attorney. Or possibly to make good your escapes, to get rid of evidence, or to shoot someone else.

If you are serious about this, you need some training and education, pronto. In the mean time don't act on your own advice.

If you are being sarcastic, we do not need that here.

Frank Ettin
October 7, 2012, 12:47 PM
....Big deal. If you actually plan to eventually co-operate, and don't alter the "evidence", there is no foul....the only thing you have done is stall a piece of the investigation just long enough to confer with an attorney (to protect your rights; a good reason in MY opinion), and nothing was lost except a little time....You still fail to grasp that the fact of leaving the scene (flight) can be considered to be evidence of guilt.

Here's what some cases say:

State v. Walker, 595 P.2d 1098 (Kan., 1979), at 1099 - 1100:...the general rule that evidence of flight may be admissible in order to establish the defendant's consciousness of guilt. 29 Am.Jur.2d, Evidence § 280; 22A C.J.S. Criminal Law § 625; ...
...
It is well settled that conduct of the accused following the commission of an alleged crime may be circumstantially relevant to prove both the commission of the acts charged and the intent and purpose for which those acts were committed. Among such conduct is flight of the accused...


State v. Quiroz, 772 N.W.2d 710 (Wis. App., 2009), at 716: ...It is well established that evidence of flight has probative value as to guilt. See State v. Knighten, 212 Wis.2d 833, 838-39, 569 N.W.2d 770 (Ct.App.1997). Analytically, flight is an admission by conduct. State v. Miller, 231 Wis.2d 447, 460, 605 N.W.2d 567 (Ct.App.1999). The fact of an accused's flight is generally admissible against the accused as circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt and thus of guilt itself....


State v. Robinson, 360 S.C. 187 (S.C. App., 2004), at 195:...See also State v. Beckham, 334 S.C. 302, 315, 513 S.E.2d 606, 612 (1999) (stating that evidence of flight has been held to constitute evidence of guilty knowledge and intent); State v. Grant, 275 S.C. 404, 407, 272 S.E.2d 169, 171 (1980) ("[A]ttempts to run away have always been regarded as some evidence of guilty knowledge and intent.") (internal quotation marks omitted); State v. Ballenger, 322 S.C. 196, 200, 470 S.E.2d 851, 854 (1996) (noting that flight is "at least some evidence" of defendant's guilt); State v. Thompson, 278 S.C. 1, 10-11, 292 S.E.2d 581, 587 (1982), .... (finding evidence of flight admissible to show guilty knowledge, intent, and that defendant sought to avoid apprehension); State v. Freely, 105 S.C. 243, 89 S.E. 643 (1916) (declaring the flight of one charged with a crime has always been held to be some evidence tending to prove guilt);...

Warp
October 7, 2012, 02:28 PM
The question the likely response triggers, for me - In leaving, are you trying to draw danger away from your friend, since you just defended them from that danger, or are you leaving your friend to deal with the danger you fear you just brought upon yourself?

I don't think you brought it upon yourself. I think you lifted off your friend and simply shifted it to yourself. And if they come back it will be escalated.

If you enjoyed reading about "Teenage Robber Dead, Shot by Good Samaritan" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!