Fear For Life

[Snyper]

Maybe, but this isn't about fantasy.

That particular post was, as well as your reply.

The thread itself isn't about a fantasy, but none of us were there so anything we think about it makes no difference in the end.

It's just a fact that these threads generally include lots of fantasy "What if..." or "I would.." scenarios, and each is as valid as the next.

 

[jmorris]

which happens to be the subject of training drills, is not at all the same as shooting someone who is stealing property.

I agree but in the video I don't see any evidence of theft at all. Saying "they were" going to steal is conjecture. The pistol is out and ready before he even hit the ground behind the counter, that we do know. The only move he makes towards his right is after the gun starts going off.

 

[jmorris]

The detectives who analyzed the video

Yeah, there are lots of people both average citizens and LEO that are glad that being charged with a crime is not the same as being found guilty of a crime. As I said earlier, his attorney only needs 1 out of the jury pool he can convince.

Of course there could be video of the same pair coming in the same way and actually stopping to grab stuff off the wall, the week before. That would change our perception, as would a video of the same pair coming in the same way and killing the last clerk, the week before.

 

[Hanzo581]

I'd also take issue with the fact the guy works retail and should be well aware of how frequently snatch and grab thefts happen. It is not uncommon for crooks to dart into a store, load their arms up and run out.

 

[grampajack]

I didn't even see that they were masked, or that they had to jump over barriers to get behind the counter. That changes everything. And I must say that video is very deceptive if you don't slow it down. I can't see any other rational conclusion to be drawn other than that this clerk had every good reason to fear for his life.

I'm just going to be blunt here: this thread is full of a bunch of holier than thou armchair quarterbacking.

 

[jmorris]

I'd also take issue with the fact the guy works retail and should be well aware of how frequently snatch and grab thefts happen.

Yeah but then you also have to acknowledge that it isn't uncommon for clerks to get beaten and killed as well. That's a no go right off the bat. That's like saying a woman is "asking" to be raped because they dress attractively or cops are asking to be shot at. No reason not to expect people to follow the law or face the consequences.

Worth noting that I don't know of any law they broke in that video either. Then again there are a lot of crimes that are prevented before they had chance to occur, this one is just another example. What crime they intended to pull off that day is anyone's guess from what I can see or someone could prove beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence presented and that's the important part for his defense.

I don't know, maybe it's the State I live in and cases I have read about. Not that I would do or suggest either but there have been people shot and killed on the other side of a locked door while attempting to gain access and people going towards bad situations to property they don't even own and killing someone and they didn't make it past a grand jury, while being much less threat that what I am seeing in the video.

Then again I can see the "spin" you fellows are talking about. You see a "MIDDLE SCHOOL kid being gunned down by a gun toting man, for nothing." While I am seeing "two masked individuals rushing into a store and one being shot after jumping and gaining access behind the counter."

 

[jmorris]

Earlier Wednesday, District Attorney Steve Wolfson revealed new details about the shooting case to News 3. According to Wolfson, Fabriccio Patti and the two boys he was with the night he was shot and killed, were not wearing masks when two of the boys entered...

Wolfson also told News 3 that two of the boys were leaving the store when Raad Sunna, the store clerk, opened fire.

If that's what the DA is hanging his case on, he doesn't have one. It's obvious they are masked and there was no attempt to leave until after shots fired.

http://news3lv.com/news/local/distr...rk-was-not-wearing-a-mask-during-the-shooting

 

[RPZ]

Yeah but then you also have to acknowledge that it isn't uncommon for clerks to get beaten and killed as well. That's a no go right off the bat. That's like saying a woman is "asking" to be raped because they dress attractively or cops are asking to be shot at. No reason not to expect people to follow the law or face the consequences.

Worth noting that I don't know of any law they broke in that video either. Then again there are a lot of crimes that are prevented before they had chance to occur, this one is just another example. What crime they intended to pull off that day is anyone's guess from what I can see or someone could prove beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence presented and that's the important part for his defense.

I don't know, maybe it's the State I live in and cases I have read about. Not that I would do or suggest either but there have been people shot and killed on the other side of a locked door while attempting to gain access and people going towards bad situations to property they don't even own and killing someone and they didn't make it past a grand jury, while being much less threat that what I am seeing in the video.

Then again I can see the "spin" you fellows are talking about. You see a "MIDDLE SCHOOL kid being gunned down by a gun toting man, for nothing." While I am seeing "two masked individuals rushing into a store and one being shot after jumping and gaining access behind the counter."

You have to really watch the footage a few times to analyse it. The guy that breaks to the right (from the clerk's viewpoint) comes to a stop doing something, the guy that goes left goes further, but not much, and looks to me like he stopped too. At that point the store clerk starts shooting. So it does not appear that either of them were zeroing in on the clerk to press a hands on attack, and at that point they were both still a good distance away. One poster states it is approximately 40 feet. Even 20 feet away you are going to have a difficult time claiming your life was in peril from an unarmed "attacker". Given what I see, I would not have fired at that point. The guy to the right was definately stopped. Even if the guy to the left kept coming his way, in the absence of a tangible identifiable weapon, the clerk is going to have a hard time claiming disparity of force in using deadly force to defend himself.

We do not know what was going on in the clerk's mind. It could simply be his mind was miles away when they came through the door, and caught by surprise he panicked. He was looking, but not really seeing what he was looking at.

 

[fastbolt]

... While I am seeing "two masked individuals rushing into a store and one being shot after jumping and gaining access behind the counter."

By "jumping" and gaining access behind the counter, do you mean the minor who had to step over a box of something sitting on the floor, behind the apparently normal open end of the counter?

 

[jmorris]

You have to really watch the footage a few times to analyse it. The guy that breaks to the right (from the clerk's viewpoint) comes to a stop doing something, the guy that goes left goes further, but not much, and looks to me like he stopped too. At that point the store clerk starts shooting...

The gun is drawn and pointing in the direction of the now deceased while he is still in the air, shown in the first photo of post #71 (45 seconds into the video). Would need audio and/or better video to know exactly at what point a change in direction occurred vs gun shot but I am not seeing a "stop" in terms of a stand still, as much as a reverse in direction of movement.

By "jumping" and gaining access behind the counter, do you mean the minor who had to step over a box of something sitting on the floor...

Yes, I think when you use enough energy to "spring" yourself into the air and both feet are off the ground, that is the act of jumping. Someone that makes dictionaries agrees too.

jump
jəmp/
verb

1. 1.
   push oneself off a surface and into the air by using the muscles in one's legs and feet.

step

1. step/
   verb
   1. 1.
      lift and set down one's foot or one foot after the other in order to walk somewhere or move to a new position.

 

[Kleanbore]

I can't see any other rational conclusion to be drawn other than that this clerk had every good reason to fear for his life.

Doesn't matter.

 

[Kleanbore]

Then again there are a lot of crimes that are prevented before they had chance to occur, this one is just another example.

How might that enter into a defense of justification?

 

[Kleanbore]

I agree but in the video I don't see any evidence of theft at all. Saying "they were" going to steal is conjecture.

The detectives reported that the subjects were stealing property.. They did not put it in the future tense, or base it on conjecture.

Perhaps you do not see that. I do.

If this goes to trial, and if the defense team believes that a persuasive case could be made that your interpretation is more accurate than that of the detectives, and if they can find a qualified expert witness who would be willing and able to present such an interpretation in court, there would be some chance of rebutting the testimony of the detectives with some possible effectiveness.

I would not bet on it.

 

[jmorris]

Nothing like changing the story to fit the narrative the DA wants.

Metro homicide's Dan McGrath said they were waiting for the owner of the shop to get a password for access to video inside the shop, which could reveal more information about the shooting. However, McGrath said video surveillance from other business shows these youth covering their faces with masks before entering the business.

http://news3lv.com/news/the-cw-news...flamingo-and-durango-drive-metro-investigates

 

[RPZ]

The gun is drawn and pointing in the direction of the now deceased while he is still in the air, shown in the first photo of post #71 (45 seconds into the video). Would need audio and/or better video to know exactly at what point a change in direction occurred vs gun shot but I am not seeing a "stop" in terms of a stand still, as much as a reverse in direction of movement.

I will grant you that. The way I perceive his change in direction though is that he turned to the wall. To grab something? Maybe. The guy to the right is definately preoccupied with something.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, it could be he realized the clerk had a pistol looking his direction. Regardless, he was a good distance away in the context of convincing a DA, GJ, and trial Jury "this unarmed (apparently) attacker (to the left) coming my way put me in fear of deadly peril". If they had both come down the center of the store and then jumped the counter twenty feet or less from him and both charged him it might be more convincing.

 

[fastbolt]

...
Yes, I think when you use enough energy to "spring" yourself into the air and both feet are off the ground, that is the act of jumping. Someone that makes dictionaries agrees too.

... While I am seeing "two masked individuals rushing into a store and one being shot after jumping and gaining access behind the counter."

You're jumping to a conclusion, using words and applying definitions as you wish to see them used.

This is where words mean things, but not necessarily as you may wish for them to be applied to a specific situation.

When there's a short box of something sitting on the floor, on the open floor space at the end of an otherwise open counter, and someone has to negotiate going over that short box, and their feet may be a few inches in the air as one foot is coming down and the other is rising up, it's a far different thing than someone "Jumping and gaining access behind the counter".

Describe "someone jumping and gaining access behind a counter" to a normal group of "reasonable persons/peers" who don't have benefit of seeing the video, and your description is probably going to have them imagine someone actually jumping up and over an actual counter. They're going to further imagine the counter also serving as an actual physical barrier or impediment to gaining access behind the counter (as counters often do). That wasn't what was visible on the video clip.

The suspect in the video didn't have to jump over the counter, or any regular physical barrier seemingly intended to keep people out from behind the counter. He had to clear a small box that had been left sitting on the floor. He braced his hand on the corner of the counter and lightly jumped/skipped/hopped (pick whatever word you fancy) over the short box sitting on the floor behind the counter. If the box hadn't been sitting there, there wouldn't have been any particular physical barrier to the suspect going behind the counter.

The other suspect easily walked behind the same sort of counter, but he didn't have to negotiate getting over a small box.

What was it about the suspect on the clerk's "left", having to get over a small box that had been left sitting on the floor (which would've reasonably been known to the clerk, if he'd left it sitting on the floor), that made him seem more of an imminent threat, in your eyes? It's not like the suspect ran to the rear/middle of the store and actually leaped over the actual counter, in an attempt to get at the clerk.

 

[jmorris]

I will grant you that. The way I perceive his change in direction though is that he turned to the wall. To grab something? Maybe. The guy to the right is definately preoccupied with something.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, it could be he realized the clerk had a pistol looking his direction.

"Could" and "Maybe" are the things inside "beyond a reasonable doubt" that could keep him from being convicted. He already said the right thing, that he believed his life was in danger and if his story hasn't changed that's more than we can say for the police/DA's story's quoted and cited above.

 

[jmorris]

You're jumping to a conclusion, using words and applying definitions as you wish to see them used.

I am not applying definitions rather using words that apply to the action and it can be proven that he did jump.

The deceased did not step over or around an obstacle, rather jumped over it. If you "jump rope" you are not flying as high as a guy making a slam dunk but if you are high enough for the rope to pass under both of your feet, you are in fact jumping.

 

[Kleanbore]

He already said the right thing, that he believed his life was in danger

Necessary, but far from sufficient....

his story hasn't changed...

But it has been contradicted by the video.

The deceased did not step over or around an obstacle, rather jumped over it. If you "jump rope" you are not flying as high as a guy making a slam dunk but if you are high enough for the rope to pass under both of your feet, you are in fact jumping.

How would any of that enter into whether it had been immediately necessary to use deadly force to defend against an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm?

 

[fastbolt]

I am not applying definitions rather using words that apply to the action.

The deceased did not step over or around an obstacle, rather jumped over it. If you "jump rope" you are not flying as high as a guy making a slam dunk but if you are high enough for the rope to pass under both of your feet, you are in fact jumping.

You do realize that "skip rope" or "skipping rope" is just as much of a common name for the exercise and child's game you call "jump rope", right?

This is where sometimes definitions casually used may require further explanation and additional context so relevance can be obtained.

So, what about the suspect on the clerk's left having to "JUMP" (or skip) over the small box, unlike the other suspect having the ability to walk around the counter without having to step around or otherwise navigate a small box on the floor, made that particular suspect seem more of a threat ... if you were in the clerk's position (and likely knew it was just a small box you'd left sitting there)?

Even if the deceased suspect had vigorously LEAPED over the counter, at what point did that make him reasonably seem to be an imminent threat of seriously bodily injury or death, still not displaying or brandishing (or simulating) a weapon, with the clerk still approx 50ft distant, around another corner of the long counter?

These aren't trick questions, BTW. They're very reasonable questions which are probably going to be addressed and fully discussed by the DA in the presentation of his/her case, and possibly answered by the defense (should he or his attorney feel it is in his best interests to testify). The DA has to prove his case, beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense doesn't have to prove anything, or the defendant even testify in his own defense, for that matter, but the defense will likely try to create reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors, where the defense believes it may be able to do so.

I wasn't present when this happened and haven't presumed to be able to "judge" the defendant's guilt, but I'd not wish to be in his position in this instance, either.

Even with the involved laws and possible verdicts clearly explained by the judge (during jury instructions), it's always unpredictable to try and guess how a jury will arrive at a verdict. Credibility of a defendant (witness, suspect, cop, etc) can go a long way with a jury (as well it should). I hope this thread is updated when/if this case goes to trial, and if it does, when a verdict is determined.

 

[jmorris]

But it has been contradicted by the video.

How can you gain what he believed from a video? What detail am I missing from the video that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the masked person was not a threat in route?

Do you think the man's life in the far right of this photo was in eminent danger from one of the unarmed people in the circle?

Kind of a trick question because the man was killed by one punch.

http://abc7chicago.com/news/sucker-punch-in-las-vegas-kills-father-of-5;-man-arrested/1967643/

Coincidence the trotting unarmed man killed the other in the same State and City the event of this thread occurred in. The story was national news and saturated TV there as they searched for the suspect. May change the perception of potential jurors as to what constitutes a deadly threat with relation to distance and lack of weapons, not that the store clerk knew that either of the people were unarmed, like we do after the fact.

So we are back to how close do we allow a threat get before we take action to stop it?

 

[Hanzo581]

I mean honestly, the guy was up on target when the thief was at least 30 feet away, bottom line he's going to have a hard time explaining why he felt he was under such an imminent threat that he couldn't wait literally one more second to see the person stop. You can't shoot shoplifters, plain and simple, and regardless of the speed at which the shoplifting took place, that's what this was...the clerk assumed it was going to be something else and fired, now it's up to his lawyers to prove he was in fear of his life, which I can't see how he would be given the distance of the thief and the fact he was already on target ready to press the trigger.

 

[fastbolt]

... how close do we allow a threat get before we take action to stop it?

Excellent question. This is one of the big ones. This cuts to the crux of many matters.

When is someone reasonably determined to be a threat?

What type of threat do they present?

Do you consider yourself a reasonable person?

Do you understand the difference between a bare fear and a reasonable fear? (Those terms are often clearly defined in statutory and case law, just for these sort of situations).

Are you still going to be able to act in a manner considered to be that of a "reasonable person" if you find yourself in a chaotic, dynamic and rapidly evolving set of circumstances? What if there's no imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death present in those circumstances, though? Will you be able to recognize that and use good judgement? Would a "reasonable person", in similar circumstances, be able to do so??

Would any other randomly selected "reasonable person" (peer/juror) believe the same as you, in the same situations and totality of circumstances?

 

[RPZ]

"Could" and "Maybe" are the things inside "beyond a reasonable doubt" that could keep him from being convicted. He already said the right thing, that he believed his life was in danger and if his story hasn't changed that's more than we can say for the police/DA's story's quoted and cited above.

Yes. However. No weapons, one unarmed subject "coming at me .... So I shot him dead about when he got to within about forty feet".

Do not think that will fly somehow. If it does - barring anything we do not know at this stage - I want a copy of everything to do with the case when it is over. It can go on the pile of legal precedence for a rainy day. Heck, now you do not even have to say "I saw something shiny".. or "He was reaching for something". Just, "He was running toward me and I was in fear for my life".

 

[jmorris]

How about this, what if the two that entered the store were career criminals already convicted of murder in the past and released to return to the life of crime, would this even be a story?

If you answer no, then you have to come up with how the clerk could have made an assessment in two seconds as to the intent and criminal history of the fellow coming towards him. Removing a mask and seeing it's a kid after wasn't information he had at the time he made the decision.

If you shot someone pointing a gun at you and later found it to be unloaded, you might change your reaction IF you could go back with that knowledge, called hind sight but that doesn't make the original corse criminal, as you "believed" there was a threat despite the fact when the smoke cleared, there was none.

Would you just hope for the best and think the person coming at you intended you no harm?