With his car blocking the street outside?
Papa Johns Pizza Employee Acquitted of Involuntary Manslaughter
- Thread starter Jeff White
- Start date
- Status
bdickens
Member
I'm not interested in arguing. Point I'm trying to make is that a shooting is legally justified or not based solely on the laws concerning deadly force and the facts immediately surrounding the incident.
Not whether or not the shooter did something tactically unsound, is stupid, is a racist, homophobe, wingnut, moonbat, hatemonger, SJW, or says dumb stuff on the internet. Rather, whether or not his actions conformed to the law.
Nazis, Klansmen, Homophobes, Communists, Black Panthers, geniuses, stupid people and Antifa [protesters] all get to defend themselves.
Not whether or not the shooter did something tactically unsound, is stupid, is a racist, homophobe, wingnut, moonbat, hatemonger, SJW, or says dumb stuff on the internet. Rather, whether or not his actions conformed to the law.
Nazis, Klansmen, Homophobes, Communists, Black Panthers, geniuses, stupid people and Antifa [protesters] all get to defend themselves.
This case was not dismissed by a grand jury but by a judge after a bench trial.
From the story,
"Also, the judge said it was “notable” that the store had been robbed several days earlier. About 10 p.m. May 27, robbers held up Eckenrodt’s manager at gunpoint and fled with cash. Eckenrodt was in the walk-in cooler during the earlier robbery.
Sengheiser’s ruling relied on what is often called Missouri’s Castle Doctrine, which says someone has no obligation to retreat who “reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself,” his home, vehicle, private property or “any other location such person has the right to be.”
Swingle said in an email that “Sengheiser’s written opinion showed he carefully reviewed the evidence.”
“It was a very scholarly opinion,” Swingle said. “In hindsight, I imagine Eckenrodt himself wishes he’d held off longer before pulling the trigger.”
Link to judge's opinion via St. Louis Dispatch,
https://www.stltoday.com/read-judge...pdf_de0ca357-8b78-566e-8634-538e0a1d72d5.html
The news story omits several key details found in the opinion which the DA claims was scholarly and a careful review of the evidence as shown above. Apparently, Eckenrodt "fled", according to the judge in the opinion, the store through the side door after the cinder block was successfully thrown through the window and came up the side--the other guy had locked the freezer behind him. Thus, Eckenrodt may have not been trying to confront the deceased but trying to flee where a safe retreat (the cooler) in the store was no longer possible. Apparently, the role of Eckenrodt (he was in the cooler during the prior robbery) and Brooks (the manager who had a gun pointed at him in the prior robbery) switched places in this event. Eckenrodt then came face to face with the guy resulting in shots mere seconds after the cinder block was thrown successfully through the window. That tends to put quite a different face on the confrontation and I would be curious to see the actual police interrogation and other evidence in the case.
BTW, cinder block, rocks, bricks, etc. are usually considered potentially lethal projectiles at short distances--you might want to look up the case of Reginald Denny and what these things did to him in the LA riots. In short distance, one could not outrun such.
From the story,
"Also, the judge said it was “notable” that the store had been robbed several days earlier. About 10 p.m. May 27, robbers held up Eckenrodt’s manager at gunpoint and fled with cash. Eckenrodt was in the walk-in cooler during the earlier robbery.
Sengheiser’s ruling relied on what is often called Missouri’s Castle Doctrine, which says someone has no obligation to retreat who “reasonably believes that such deadly force is necessary to protect himself,” his home, vehicle, private property or “any other location such person has the right to be.”
Swingle said in an email that “Sengheiser’s written opinion showed he carefully reviewed the evidence.”
“It was a very scholarly opinion,” Swingle said. “In hindsight, I imagine Eckenrodt himself wishes he’d held off longer before pulling the trigger.”
Link to judge's opinion via St. Louis Dispatch,
https://www.stltoday.com/read-judge...pdf_de0ca357-8b78-566e-8634-538e0a1d72d5.html
The news story omits several key details found in the opinion which the DA claims was scholarly and a careful review of the evidence as shown above. Apparently, Eckenrodt "fled", according to the judge in the opinion, the store through the side door after the cinder block was successfully thrown through the window and came up the side--the other guy had locked the freezer behind him. Thus, Eckenrodt may have not been trying to confront the deceased but trying to flee where a safe retreat (the cooler) in the store was no longer possible. Apparently, the role of Eckenrodt (he was in the cooler during the prior robbery) and Brooks (the manager who had a gun pointed at him in the prior robbery) switched places in this event. Eckenrodt then came face to face with the guy resulting in shots mere seconds after the cinder block was thrown successfully through the window. That tends to put quite a different face on the confrontation and I would be curious to see the actual police interrogation and other evidence in the case.
BTW, cinder block, rocks, bricks, etc. are usually considered potentially lethal projectiles at short distances--you might want to look up the case of Reginald Denny and what these things did to him in the LA riots. In short distance, one could not outrun such.
That was in reference to the Joe Horn case in Texas.
That could well explain it--I have not seen the evidence.
As has been said, "you are not understanding the dynamics of a self defense situation. ".
A defender could do everything in accordance the the law and still not prevail in a legal defense of self defense.
What will mater is how the triers of fact (jurors to whom the law has been explained by the judge, or on the case of a bench trial, the judge) interpret the evidence presented by the prosecution and by the defendant. Understand that that evidence, even eye witness testimony will, by necessity, be incomplete.
The triers of fact will have to decide the questions of what the defender knew at the time, based on the evidence, and whether a reasonable person in similar circumstance would have done the same thing.
They have to decide whether there is a reasonable doubt as to whether the actor was innocent, whether he or she had a basis tor a reasonable belief that an imminent threat existed, and that all of the required elements of self defense were met.
Part what has to be decided is whether the defender actually believed that an imminent treat existed and that the use of deadly force had been necessary.
A defendant's having said "dumb stuff on the internet", or to arriving officers, or to the media, or in court, can lead jurors to conclude that there had likely been something in the actor's mind other than an actual belief that ah imminent threat existed.
This is not theory. Cases have hinged on such things.
Does this help?
Last edited:
JTHunter
Member
After reading the linked article, I was thinking that EDP might have meant "extremely drunk person". 
BSA1
member
This is a excellent example of a effectiveness of a good defense attorney. It is generally taught in law school that it is best to have a bench trial when the Defense is based solely on the facts. The defense recognized that the defendants comments to the Police after the shooting would not played well with the jury as juries are often swayed by their emotions and ignore the facts.
Insignificant bill
Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2019
- Messages
- 1,208
Make no statements and be heard by a judge if necessary.
I don't know about Texas but where I live the force has to be proportional. You can't use deadly force because someone slapped you even though you have been assaulted. In the case of protecting property as I understand it you could use deadly force for someone attempting to steal a $400,000 Necklace but not a piece of gum. Of course what a reasonable person would assume is life threatening force or valuable enough property is unclear.
One good thing is you have immunity from civil suit unless you are convicted.
Where do you live? I’m not aware of any jurisdiction in the US that authorizes the use of deadly force to protect property based on its cash value.
It's not in statute. The statute say you are justified to use deadly force if the person is engaged in certain classes of larceny but my understanding is case law says a reasonable person has to find that amount of force justified. IE You can't shoot someone for stealing a piece of chewing gum or a paperclip.
My understanding of the principle of Self Defense was it was based on threat or perceived threat so I don't really see why the value of the item would matter.
It's possible the Attorney that taught our Self Defense Class misinformed us but that is what we were told.
I have no intention of using deadly force for what I perceive as a property crime anyway. I can only justify the taking of a life to myself if I fear someone is in danger of death or grave injury.
Last edited:
You can’t shoot someone for stealing at all. Period! Not in the US anyway. Under some circumstances you can use deadly force to thwart a forcible felony which is a very narrow category of crimes.
You can use deadly force to protect yourself or another from death or great bodily harm.
While you are correct that you can’t use deadly force to stop someone from stealing a paper clip you can’t use deadly force to stop someone from stealing the Hope Diamond either.
An exception would be if the person who wanted to steal your paper clip decided to take it from you by the threat of using force that would put you in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.
I changed my wording a bit to make it a little clearer what I was trying to convey. As I said I fail to see why the value would matter but we were told it did. Possibly it is the assumption that the value of the property affects the level of perceived threat. IE A reasonable person would perceive the threat level as higher if a person was attempting to steal $5 Million instead of $5.00. I also wonder if this comes more into play when constructive breaking is involved.
Why?
RetiredUSNChief
Member
The problem here is this is a presumption, not an actual scenario in real life surrounded by a set of circumstances.
To make an evaluation on a threat level, all the known circumstances have to be evaluated holistically from the perspective of a "reasonable person".
Part of that would be whether our not the perpetrator was reasonably perceived as, for example, capable of presenting a credible threat of physical harm. Was he armed? If unarmed, was there credible evidence he was capable of a significant disparity of force? How close was he? Was he in the process of entering, approaching, or leaving? Were there accomplices? Was it evident that a physical attack was imminent?
Value is a subjective quality. It's possible a thief may not know what he's taking has any real value..."smash and grab" thefts may be a case of "grab what I can and hope it's worth something". And there are plenty of people for whom that $5 may very well be worth a person's life.
All this is not to say that there is no truth at all in what you said... only that "value" in and of itself, is not necessarily sufficient to justify the use of deadly force.
SSN Vet
Member
"I have pain in my chest... I can't breath...."
That magic phrase should immediately change you from a suspect being interrogated into a victim being rushed to the hospital.
If that doesn't work... fall on the ground and start convulsing.
That magic phrase should immediately change you from a suspect being interrogated into a victim being rushed to the hospital.
If that doesn't work... fall on the ground and start convulsing.
Very bad advice, unless the symptoms are real.
This has been discussed here at length in the past.
While I wouldn’t recommend faking a heart attack, it’s not unreasonable to be checked out after a deadly force encounter. The large Adrenalin dump can bring on a cardiac event.
Agree.
The original news story is misleading and leaves out important information.
However, if you read the bench trial opinion that set the Domino's employee free in my link above, it has lessons about how courts view lethal force decisions in a case where the aggressor was a mentally disturbed violent man.
In brief, previously, that same Domino's Pizza had been robbed. In that incident, the employee (future shooter) got inside the cooler and locked himself in and the manager had to face the armed robber. This time, the roles were reversed, from the indications, the employee was trying to flee the store from the crazed guy that was throwing concrete blocks through the window, shouting threats, behaving in a deranged fashion due to the manager locking himself into the cooler. My guess, without knowing the store layout, is that the employee was trying to flee toward the street where people were around than vice versa and exited the side door. Unfortunately, the deranged nut was there already with another concrete block--which can present a risk of death or serious injury if thrown or being hit with it. The folks at Domino's called 911 several times, locked the door to keep the guy outside, attempted calm the mentally ill aggressor,and did everything possible to avoid the conflict. That is why every step that you take to de-escalate or to get official help is important.
If you read quite of bit of police reports etc., it is relatively common that you come across reports of violent deranged behavior fueled by substance abuse and probably underlying mental illness and quite often lethal force is used to stop attacks from them. However, mentally ill individuals also are more sympathetic than a stone cold violent thug doing it for cash and often family members and mental health advocates take the side of the mentally ill aggressor. This puts pressure on the DA to charge as often these folks have weapons of convenience rather than firearms. Thus, both police and the armed citizen face the risk of conflict with a mentally unstable/drug fueled zombie with no rational impulses left. In saner days, this type of aggressor would be in custodial psychiatric care.
The context is also that St. Louis DA office has been overcome with a Soros supported DA who is in legal trouble just like the Soros DA in Cook Cty for other reasons. Needless to say, these DAs are not supportive of the right to self defense Most of the previous professional ADAs have left and been replaced by hacks. The ADA in this case was probably ordered by the new Soros DA to pursue the case and he left the DA's office shortly after this case. The DA, herself, probably is going to face criminal charges for misbehavior in an unrelated case and has basically destroyed any working relationship with the police department through her antics (see Kim Gardner, DA).
old lady new shooter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2015
- Messages
- 30,590
ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, from https://www.azleg.gov/arsDetail/?title=13. Note that 13-411 includes prevention of first- or second-degree burglary.
13-408. Justification; use of physical force in defense of property
A person is justified in using physical force against another when and to the extent that a reasonable person would believe it necessary to prevent what a reasonable person would believe is an attempt or commission by the other person of theft or criminal damage involving tangible movable property under his possession or control, but such person may use deadly physical force under these circumstances as provided in sections 13-405, 13-406 and 13-411.
13-405. Justification; use of deadly physical force
A. A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another:
1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under section 13-404, and
2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.
B. A person has no duty to retreat before threatening or using deadly physical force pursuant to this section if the person is in a place where the person may legally be and is not engaged in an unlawful act.
13-406. Justification; defense of a third person
A person is justified in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force against another to protect a third person if, under the circumstances as a reasonable person would believe them to be, such person would be justified under section 13-404 or 13-405 in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force to protect himself against the unlawful physical force or deadly physical force a reasonable person would believe is threatening the third person he seeks to protect.
13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability
A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.
B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section.
C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if the person is acting to prevent what the person reasonably believes is the imminent or actual commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section.
D. This section includes the use or threatened use of physical force or deadly physical force in a person's home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where a person has a right to be.
Burglary is a forcible felony. Stealing or theft in some states is not a forcible felony and the elements of those crimes do not include the threat of or use of force to commit the criminal act. Burglary doesn't have to contain the threat of or use of force to commit the crime but it's defined as entering a structure with the intent to steal something. Some states only cover buildings and dwellings with their burglary law and have separate statutes covering motor vehicles, railroad cars etc.
When you talk about what crimes you may use deadly force to thwart you must be aware of what the law actually says in your jurisdiction and what the law says are the elements of the crime to make it an offense you can use force to thwart. For example, before I retired we had a case where a man shot a person who had broken into his late mother's vacant house, the man saw light there, discovered the person in the house, went over to check it out and shot him. The shooting occurred during a bad thunderstorm. If the shooting was justified hinged on if the intruder was a burglar (entered the house with intent to steal something) or a trespasser. The "victim" survived and his story is that he was on foot and entered the house to get out of the storm. States Attorney sent the case to the Grand Jury who refused to indict the shooter. This could easily have gone the other way. Of the states attorney could have simply believed the "victim's" story and charged the shooter.
It's very important to know exactly what the law says about the elements of the crime and if the crime you are losing deadly force to thwart is actually what you think it is. You also need to know how the courts in your jurisdiction have ruled on these kinds of cases. The guy who shot the man he caught in his late mother's home could be coming up for parole right now had the investigating officers and the states attorney wanted to look at it as a case of trespass. As it was the states attorney covered himself by taking it to the grand jury. Our detective who handled the case told me after he testified before the grand jury that an indictment pretty much hinged on how he wrote his report and what he said during testimony. It would have been very easy to sell people on the idea that the poor guy entered a vacant house to get out of a storm and was shot for his trouble.
ClickClickD'oh
Member
Correction: A Grand Jury in Texas is the prosecutions circus. Defense counsel plays no part other than to advise the defendant regarding their rights (ie, when to shut up).
1st degree burglary means entering a person's residence with a deadly weapon and 2nd degree burglary means entering a person's residence. Third degree which a general catchall for property other than residences does not appear to allow deadly force.
This type of variance among state codes is why forcible felonies differ as to what they cover among the states. Even the U.S. Sup. Ct. has had difficulty determining whether burglary per se is a forcible felony and fell back on Blackstone in one case as it affects sentencing under the U.S. Armed Career Criminal Act as far as strikes for prior convictions.
Here is the relevant AZ code on burglary,
ARS § 13.1507 is considered burglary in the second degree. This means the defendant has committed burglary by unlawfully entering or remaining on a residential structure with the intent to commit theft. A residential structure here means any type of structure that is a human residence, occupied or not (this would include: homes, apartments, condos, etc.).
Example:
- Brittany unlawfully enters a random home to steal some valuable jewelry. Since this burglary is committed on residential property, it is burglary in the second degree.
Example:
- Danny and Sara break into their neighbors’ empty apartment with a gun. They both take expensive electronics from the apartment. The couple may be charged with burglary in the first degree.
Some states distinguish burglary whether the burglar had reason to believe that the house was inhabited at the time of the burglary to qualify as a forcible felony.
In general, AZ follows Blackstone's formulation that burglary is considered a crime of violence if it occurs when a reasonable chance of a conflict with a resident is present by illegal or attempted illegal entry into a residence.
A third degree burglary apparently is considered a non-forcible felony under AZ law.
To determine how the laws play out in fact, I would suggest reading AZ caselaw as to what constitutes a forcible felony type burglary under the laws above. There may be qualifiers such as a 2nd degree burglary might require some sort of forced or attempted forced entry rather than opening an unlocked door or entering a residence by deception.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
