Fear For Life

I would have a hard time finding him guilty. So many robberies that start out just like this end up with the clerk getting shot in cold blood, and distinguishing one from the other in those first split seconds is more soothsaying than it is a science. It's almost kind of like playing the lottery either way. You shoot, you better hope they were armed. You don't shoot, you better hope they're not armed. In real life you just don't have time to sit there and analyze the situation. You're already reacting to an ambush as it is.

Just from watching everyone's body language, I don't think the clerk shot them out of anger. I think he legitimately feared for his life, and it was more of a limbic reaction than a conscious decision. I think especially rushing behind the counter like that is an aggressive enough move to make the clerk fear for his life. Again, just from everyone's body language, I think the clerk was under the impression that he was getting rushed, and only as an outside observer not full of adrenaline can you calmly sit there and play armchair quarterback. We also don't know what might have been said. Without any sound we don't know if they made any threats when they burst into his shop.

Totally not saying he was right to shoot, or that anyone should follow his example, just saying that anyone could end up in his position. You don't have to be a bloodthirsty killer to get startled and misread a situation, and once that "fight" reflex is triggered it isn't easily switched off again.

Weapon, intent, delivery system. I didn't see any weapon or intent to harm. The store setup was less than ideal to discourage theft. Nice shooting though...

Kleanbore said:

It is not for the citizen to punish. Leave that to the criminal justice system. It is not for the citizen to engage "bad guys" because they are "bad guys". Leave that to sworn officers, or to Randolph Scott and his play acting. The citizen may only prevent, as immediately necessary.

Click to expand...

What I was getting at is I don't think it was in his heart to punish them, or kill them simply to prevent loss of property even. I think when he made the decision to shoot he was convinced that he was about to be bum rushed. In those first few seconds it really did look like they were trying to rush him, if you can put yourself in his shoes. It's also worth noting that he shot the one who was closest to him, and as far as I could tell he didn't make any effort to shoot the one who ran away.

In order to learn anything from this situation, we have to first accept that even someone with the best of intentions could land themselves in this guy's place. I could totally be misreading the situation, but I truly believe what we're seeing here is a lack of training as opposed to murderous intent.

Man, I remember commenting on that video on youtube, the comment section was full of people saying the kids deserved to die for stealing. Ugh, I am all for punishment but dang.

Honestly, I'd hate to be on the jury for this one. I think it was a bad shoot, but that's the benefit of Monday morning quarterbacking, we can take forever to dissect what he had to decide in seconds. Had the kid came further down the path behind the counter towards the guy I'd have no problem, but he didn't, the kid never turned towards the guy, his side was facing the shooter as he snatched stuff.

In general terms a robbery victim can reasonably justify the use of deadly physical force in most cases. But, a robbery is also generally defined as taking something of value from another through "force, threats, or intimidation". That wasn't really the case in this instance. Rather, this was a shoplifting case. And, shooting someone for a shoplifting is a no-go in most areas. Laws vary from state to state, but under the laws in my state I saw a shoplifting here, and that won't really justify a use of deadly physical force.

Ah... Las Vegas... Nevada. That matters a lot. Might as well have been NYC.

One wonders if the store attendant had been robbed before as that would matter as it would maybe give him more apprehension as to fear for his life. Did he think his arm movements were going for a gun? Cops use that all the time to. Did he think there was more than one? Gang colors?

Anyway, lots of luck in court.

Deaf

Deaf Smith said:

Ah... Las Vegas... Nevada. That matters a lot. Might as well have been NYC.

One wonders if the store attendant had been robbed before as that would matter as it would maybe give him more apprehension as to fear for his life. Did he think his arm movements were going for a gun? Cops use that all the time to. Did he think there was more than one? Gang colors?

Anyway, lots of luck in court.

Deaf

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, juries hardly ever take those things into account, at least not when dealing with a civilian defendant. It's like that pharmacist in Oklahoma. Yes he murdered the kid, but what no one was willing to take into account is that the same kid had held him at gunpoint on three separate occasions in very recent history. It was war. Someone was going to die, and the pharmacist decided on that day it wasn't going to be him. I would have deadlocked that jury and slept like a baby afterwards. We have a pattern in this country of allowing criminals to brazenly terrorize their victims, then blame the victim when they reach their breaking point. It's shameful. Not saying this case is applicable to that, but it would not surprise me if it were.

Kleanbore said:

Maybe, but what will matter is what others in the same circumstance would have thought, and they can review the video all day long to help them decide that.

Click to expand...

And therein lies the problem. They get to sit there and play monday morning quarterback. And it's made all the more grotesque by the fact that most of them have a double digit IQ, grew up watching absurd movies and television thinking they were based in reality, and have largely never been in a life or death situation themselves. And they certainly know absolutely nothing about the limbic system, and probably don't have the life experience to grasp it even if an expert witness comes in and explains it to them.

Kleanbore said:

And they should not have. Irrelevant.

The pharmacist would not have been killed by the immobile, seriously wounded man on the floor.

Click to expand...

Not on that day, no. But if he had let the kid live there was no doubt in his mind that he would live in fear for the rest of his life waiting for him to come back and make good on his previous death threats. We don't blame our soldiers for executing wounded terrorists on the battlefield, and I don't see any moral difference between the two situations. Yes, I know it's a moot point because the only thing that matters is what the jury thinks, but I can't help pointing out the shameful state of our society and how it treats the victims of what can only be described as terrorism.

Kleanbore said:

Doesn't matter.

Click to expand...

Does matter. 'State of mind'. To be 'in fear of life' they look to see if he has had such trauma before'.

Deaf

Kleanbore said:

And in law, that is the only question, in ours and in all civilized societies.

They guy was lying on the floor after having sustained multiple serious bullet wounds. The defense trie ti argue that his wounds had been mortal,

Whatever the pharmacist may have been worried about, his worry was unfounded.

Nor would concern about what the attacker might do later justify the use of deadly force, in any US jurisdiction.

It would be a most shameful state were we to permit persons to kill other persons when there is no basis for a reasonable belief that is immediately necessary. Civilized societies got past that centuries ago.

This fellow grabbed his gun and moved immediately to a position from which he could best shoot people with it, and then claimed that he had been in "fear for his life."

Click to expand...

We agree from a legal perspective but differ greatly in the moral assessment. Like I said, I would have deadlocked that jury and even pushed for jury nullification. And I would do the same thing in this case and sleep soundly because of it. Those who prey upon the innocent and law abiding forfeit their rights in my opinion. This social justice idea that violent criminals have rights nonsense is why we can't leave our doors unlocked anymore. Crimes that at one time would have been unthinkable are now going virtually unpunished, and the victim is often revictimized by the justice system. It's like kids getting expelled from school for retaliating against their bullies, only the victims in these cases have a lot more to lose than their lunch money. I truly believe that our society is under the spell of some kind of mass Stockholm syndrome, where we've come to identify with evil and think we can reason with it.

Do you guys think he would have been charged with murder if he had only fired 2 shots?

grampajack said:

We agree from a legal perspective but differ greatly in the moral assessment. Like I said, I would have deadlocked that jury and even pushed for jury nullification. And I would do the same thing in this case and sleep soundly because of it. Those who prey upon the innocent and law abiding forfeit their rights in my opinion. This social justice idea that violent criminals have rights nonsense is why we can't leave our doors unlocked anymore. Crimes that at one time would have been unthinkable are now going virtually unpunished, and the victim is often revictimized by the justice system. It's like kids getting expelled from school for retaliating against their bullies, only the victims in these cases have a lot more to lose than their lunch money. I truly believe that our society is under the spell of some kind of mass Stockholm syndrome, where we've come to identify with evil and think we can reason with it.

Click to expand...

All of that is great, and I agree, but these are middle schoolers doing a snatch and grab of some smokes. Doesn't excuse them, but there needs to be perspective.

Kleanbore said:

Ya think so?

This isn't the same thing as a battered wife case.

And "fear of life" is only one factor.

Click to expand...

If you have ever taken Massad Ayoob's LFI-1 course (I think it is MAG-20 now) you would understand it IS a factor.

Deaf

old lady new shooter said:

Do you guys think he would have been charged with murder if he had only fired 2 shots?

Click to expand...

If the kid had died, yes, absolutely.

Hanzo581 said:

All of that is great, and I agree, but these are middle schoolers doing a snatch and grab of some smokes. Doesn't excuse them, but there needs to be perspective.

Click to expand...

That's all well and fine, but when you have two full grown males who by all outward appearances are trying to flank you, running towards you at full speed, getting behind your only cover, you don't stop to ask them how old they are, what their intentions are, or if they're armed. Their age is irrelevant in this case, or at least it should be. All that matters is their actions gave the distinct impression that they intended to do him bodily harm. He had absolutely no way of knowing that their only intent was to snatch a pipe and run away, and by the time they demonstrated their actual intentions it was too late, as he had already drawn the gun and made the decision to fire.

grampajack said:

That's all well and fine, but when you have two full grown males who by all outward appearances are trying to flank you, running towards you at full speed, getting behind your only cover, you don't stop to ask them how old they are, what their intentions are, or if they're armed. Their age is irrelevant in this case, or at least it should be. All that matters is their actions gave the distinct impression that they intended to do him bodily harm. He had absolutely no way of knowing that their only intent was to snatch a pipe and run away, and by the time they demonstrated their actual intentions it was too late, as he had already drawn the gun and made the decision to fire.

Click to expand...

I guess that's what the jury will have to figure out. I mean, snatch and grabs are nothing new and happen very frequently, if an employee happens to be standing nearby when they come in are they clear to fire? Like I said before we can dissect this all day, did he have time to wait an extra second to see the kids stop and turn away to grab stuff? The kid was also hit in the back, in general you shoot till the threat is stopped, turning away to retreat constitutes a stopped threat right? It's just a mess.

Hanzo581 said:

I guess that's what the jury will have to figure out. I mean, snatch and grabs are nothing new and happen very frequently, if an employee happens to be standing nearby when they come in are they clear to fire? Like I said before we can dissect this all day, did he have time to wait an extra second to see the kids stop and turn away to grab stuff? The kid was also hit in the back, in general you shoot till the threat is stopped, turning away to retreat constitutes a stopped threat right? It's just a mess.

Click to expand...

From the time you realize the threat is stopped to the time you stop shooting are two different things.