Teenage Robber Dead, Shot by Good Samaritan

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.

Double Naught Spy said:

Egress to a location of safety is strategically sound. That may be on site or not.

Click to expand...

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.

hso said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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--

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Mr Rogers said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Double Naught Spy said:

Uh huh, and probably doesn't help protect you when in fact they turn out to be around

Click to expand...

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.

Double Naught Spy said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Mr Rogers said:

"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.

Click to expand...

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. 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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Fred_G said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

Double Naught Spy said:

I think it is great that you use post situation omnipotence,

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Double Naught Spy said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Double Naught Spy said:

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

Click to expand...

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).

Double Naught Spy said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Double Naught Spy said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

xXxplosive said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

Manco said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

If the perps were Ms-13 or some other gang

Click to expand...

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

Warp said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Fred_G said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Warp said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Manco said:

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.

Click to expand...

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"

Kleanbore, your not a cop trying to make a cops job easy, are you? 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.)

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.

hardheart said:

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.

Click to expand...

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