CCW Permit Holder Comes to the Aid of a Store Manager

[divenutt]

How many of you were there when this happened? It's amazing to read the "responses" and the "what I wuld had did" tactics. Several posters seem to be coming up with very rigid arguments based on a very short article posted on the internet. And they seem very adamant about their viewpoint. It's fine to have a viewpoint and defend it, but please, at least take a few seconds and READ the article...especially the part where it says the manager was a WOMAN (that's where the "she" stuff fits into the story) and was trying to get the license plate number...not stop the car by standing in front of it. There is no mention of her standing there, why the need to assume random probabilities of what "might" have happened?

A 3rd party saw someone being injured (run over by a car would constitute injury for me) and felt that they were in danger. He chose to take action to prevent said injury and hopefully prevent that person's death. Isn't this one of the main reasons most people give for getting their CHL/CCW?

Or is it just so that they can come on internet forums and talk about all the Chuck Norris/Zombie killer/macho man crap that they would do "IF" this ever happened to them? Sorry, but I don't believe this was ever about stealing, GI Joe-ing, or Wild West action - a man believed that something wrong was about to happen and he chose to enter that situation and try to do something about it. I remember not too many years ago when he would have been chastised for not doing something...namely doing what is RIGHT.

(Thanks Dad for instilling that lesson early.)

 

[mesinge2]

+ 1 divenutt

 

[HuntAndFish]

@TDK - What the heck is wrong with the manager going into the parking lot to get the license number of the vehicle of a women who just stole from her store?

This is all on the woman who stole the meat and then attempted to run over the manager with her car. You are way off base here.

The manager tried writing down the license plate and yelled at them to stop and for someone to call police.

With the car turned on, police said Carroll lunged the vehicle forward, striking the manager on the legs, leaving her clinging to the hood of the car.

 

[rainbowbob]

Thee CCW Samaritan absolutely did the right thing. The employee's attempt to stop a robbery and get the plate number was the right stuff.

BUT...

With the car turned on, police said Carroll lunged the vehicle forward, striking the manager on the legs, leaving her clinging to the hood of the car.

This indicates to me that the employee was standing in front of the car. I've found myself in a similar situation as I mentioned (i.e., standing in the way of a car operated by a fleeing felon).

Her tactics, as mine, sucked.

The point of the discussion for me is just that - tactics.

Learning from the mistakes.

Is there any other way to learn?

 

[9MMare]

http://www.kmbc.com/news/20677451/detail.html


Police said Miller feared for his life and for the manager, and he fired a shot into the driver-side window. It hit Carroll in the shoulder and neck.

Carroll's son, Michael Barajas, said it wasn't right.

"He didn't even know what was going on. He just jumped out assuming. What if it had been the lady on the hood that was in the wrong? He would have shot the wrong lady," Barajas told KMBC's Marcus Moore. "He's not a police officer--he should have never done that."

Barajas admitted that his mother "put herself in a bad position."

He said he's thankful she's going to survive the gunshot wound, and he said he wishes she hadn't done what she's accused of.

"My mom should not have been stealing. However, I think this guy is very wrong for shooting her. His life was not in danger," Barajas said.

Her #%@$#% son doesnt even seem to recognize that his momma herself used deadly force. She didnt just steal something.

She tried to KILL the store mgr.

And yes, I see a lawsuit in the shooter's future (unless prohibited by state law) :-(

Anything he said to the press could be used in court...he was smart not to talk.

 

[9MMare]

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who would rather avoid a potentially fatal confrontation over a box of wing nuts or pork chops.

Personally, I think it is the duty of anyone to be a good witness in a crime. That means remembering identifying characteristics, clothing, cars, getting license plate numbers, etc....without putting one's self in jeopardy.

The store mgr misjudged, yes. But I would have attempted to do the same thing...hopefully not by standing directly in front of the car.

 

[Blakenzy]

Oh man, I feel sorry for the good Samaritan. He is SO getting his clock cleaned in civil court. While we all cheer for passing Castle Doctrine laws, we often forget to push for protection of civil liability in good shoots.

 

[9MMare]

And you just told the whole world that if you are a shoplifter go to Home Depot they won't go beyond the front door to stop you. But Home Depot will not attempt to reduce shoplifting by stopping the shoplifter but will raise the cost of their products to overcome their loses. Why? Because it is easier to raise the prices than to pay the legal costs to defend themselves in a possible law suite. IMO a slap to their customers face. Actually they need to save money to defend themselves on law suites from the injuries to customers by their employees that happen within the store .

Because stuff like this happens: About 6 yrs ago, at an Albertsons grocery here, employees called 911 and then chased a shoplifter into the parking lot. The woman got into her car, the cops came and chased her. She crashed and her baby, who was also in the car, was killed.

The store and the county were all held liable.

 

[rbernie]

He is SO getting his clock cleaned in civil court. While we all cheer for passing Castle Doctrine laws, we often forget to push for protection of civil liability in good shoots.

Most examples of 'Castle Doctrine' (which is likely NOT in play in this case) include provisions for a civil liability shield if the shoot is criminally adjudicated to be justifiable.

 

[danprkr]

What strikes me most about this is both the manager and the shooter made no comment on the matter. Perhaps this is the best course of action in today's times to avoid the negative press.

In almost every situation. And, not only the press situation, but the legal aspect also. If you say something in the heat of the moment, and it becomes an issue at trial (civil or criminal) you're likely to wish you'd kept your mouth shut. Even if it is perfectly reasonable, an attorney can twist it with the proper questioning to make you look bad nearly everytime.

So, keep quiet - at least until all the legal BS is over. At which time you're old news and your opinion is no longer cared for. Stinks, but it's nearly impossible to use these situations to their full potential because of that, but there it is.

 

[TexasRifleman]

He is SO getting his clock cleaned in civil court. While we all cheer for passing Castle Doctrine laws, we often forget to push for protection of civil liability in good shoots.

He's SO not. As rbernie says, nearly all the "Castle Doctrines" have that in them.

Missouri law:

563.074. 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 563.016, a person who uses force as described in sections 563.031, 563.041, 563.046, 563.051, 563.056, and 563.061 is justified in using such force and such fact shall be an absolute defense to criminal prosecution or civil liability.

2. The court shall award attorney's fees, court costs, and all reasonable expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant has an absolute defense as provided in subsection 1 of this section.

I would guess that there's not a lawyer in the state that would touch this case for the woman. It's almost a guaranteed loser.

http://www.learntocarry.com/docs/CastleDoctrine.html

 

[Zach S]

I'm no expert, but:

I think its a safe assumption that the person yelling "Call the cops!!!" is not the bad guy.

Therefore, I think its a safe assumption that somebody trying to run over that person is not a good guy.

The Good Samaritan didn't know anything beyond that. Considering the BG tried to run over the GG, I wouldn't have assumed the BG was (previously) non-violent.

Clearly, the perp was using deadly force against the manager (yes, Virginia, people can be killed by being run over by a car.)

And even if it dont kill ya, or even break any bones, it still hurts like hell...