Eastridge TN shooting outside convenience store

Since we have been discussing the Walmart parking lot case, in connection with which many members disagreed with the armed citizen's decision to intervene, I thought it would be interesting to discuss the Eastridge TN shooting of a few days ago which also involved intervention by an armed citizen not in his own self-defense, but a different fact situation.

A man entered a convenience store brandishing a large knife, stole cash from the register and a large quantity of cigarettes, then took a clerk hostage as he made his exit. A citizen who witnessed all this from outside fetched his weapon from his car and shot the robber in the chest, killing him without hitting the hostage.

All the news articles I found read pretty much the same, here is a link to one of them: http://www.eastridgenewsonline.com/bulletin-shooting-kangaroo/

So I am interested to hear everyone's thoughts as to whether it was a good idea for the citizen to intervene. This case differs from the Walmart one in that the civilian is not reported as having his family with him and the BG was clearly identifiable as such, but OTOH the civilian's act was arguably also dangerous to the hostage.

 

Be interesting to hear more about the individual, background, training as well as the gun.
Doesn't sound like he was a hard core ccw guy if he had to go retrieve his gun.
He definitely took a risk, bad guy could have let her go as he made his escape or he could have taken her along and murdered later.
Another one of those stories that had a good ending despite what might be called risky tactics.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

That seems (from the information provided by the news account) to be as clear-cut a case for intervening as it would be possible to imagine.

1) Very high likelihood of properly understanding what is happening and who the actors involved are. The clerk is easily identified, and she's clearly someone who would be legally justified in using lethal force to defend herself, if she could. Therefore, generally speaking, another person is (usually, in most states...maybe all) justified in using such force to defend her.

2) Weapon brandished by nearly unmistakable bad guy is lethal and he's demonstrating clear felonious intent to harm and/or kidnap.

3) But that weapon is not an immediate threat to the person stepping in, nor to any bystanders. (I.e., he's not going to start spraying bullets into the crowd of onlookers, with that knife)

3) The action being taken of attempting to remove someone from the scene (kidnap) is an immense danger sign that warrants an immediate stop, if one can be effected. A crook threatening people with a weapon while stealing isn't always a reliable indicator that physical violence is necessarily going to happen, but someone being forced to leave the scene with the bad guy is a very bad sign that some awful things can be expected to happen next. Kidnapping falls into the real short list of felonious acts which are prime lawful justifications for the use of lethal force.

4) Nobody else in the responder's immediate company who is at grave risk and deserves his assistance more than the store clerk who's being kidnapped.

All-in-all, probably about as righteous an intervention as you're likely to see.

 

I used to be a boater. One of the long standing "laws of the sea" was that you went to the aid of another----period.

The opposite seems to be true in the world of firearms. People seem to look for all kinds of excuses NOT to aid another.

One of the most important responsibilities one has when carrying a firearm is to "KNOW THE LAW". Make sure you know that your State's laws on justifiable homicide, lawful use of deadly force, and self defense are.

Most are pretty straight forward and easy to read. Take time to do so and re-read frequently. If the time comes, you'll know what you can and can't do.

DO NOT RELY on advice passed around over coffee or on the 'net. READ the laws that govern YOU.

In my State the law is pretty clear about using deadly force when any weapon is used. If someone's life is at risk you can use as much force as necessary to stop the threat, but no more than what's necessary. In short, once the threat is over you have to stop. If merely presenting a weapon to face a knife wielder ends the threat, you can't shoot. If shooting and the subject drops their weapon, you can't "finish them off".

 

Many years ago there was a similar case in my home town, but with a twist.
The Armed Citizen was inside the store when the crook announced a holdup.
The Armed Citizen shot the crook and departed.
The police department put out announcements on news media carrying the story: "Please come in and file a report. We are making no charges against you."
Armed Citizen: "How dumb do you think I am?"

 

Not terribly often when following the law of the sea and aiding another boater, that that's going to include deliberately shooting/killing other people.

When discussing self defense issues, the very real fact is that a decision you have to make in an instant will mean you're committing acts which are all extremely serious crimes in every state: threatening another with a lethal weapon, assaulting another person, killing another person, etc.

If you DO understand how the law in your state works, you may understand what justifications you will have to give to defend the action that you took, up to and including ending the life of another person in your effort to defend a life.

And as well, you run other terrible risks such as accidentally killing a bystander or the victim you're trying to aid, or being killed yourself.


It IS good to help others. And if you're receiving a distress call over your boat's VHF radio you can jump to give someone a tow or help search for a lifeboat. Or as someone brought up in another thread, you see someone injured in a car wreck you can stop and render first aid without a whole lot of second-guessing. There are some risks to either, but they're acceptable risks and common sense can help you navigate them.

When lethal force is involved, an EXCEPTIONALLY higher standard of care is required and every gun owner and gun toter needs to be as judicious as humanly possible in when they use a firearm for defense of anyone.

 

Given that the good guy went to his car to retrieve the weapon I'm ready to say the truck (long gun) would have been put to good use here.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

The article clearly states handgun.

 

Yes it does, my intent was to point out the opportunity to avail a superior weapon if it were there.
There has been much discussion in the past over long guns in vehicles.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk