Fear For Life

[Kleanbore]

How can you gain what he believed from a video?

No one can. But he said that the person was advancing toward him, and the detectives have concluded that he was not.

What detail am I missing from the video that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the masked person was not a threat in route?

Where in this country would uld one be permitted to shoot a 'threat in route"?

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

What "threat"? What "action" would be justified? Depends on a number of things.

In the OP. Good Ol' Boy described the accused burglar and his deceased accomplice as "offenders stealing but not presenting a threat to bodily harm".

 

[grampajack]

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.

You don't have a clue what you would have done in his place. You hope you wouldn't have shot. And of course his mind was miles away. Nobody sits there in their store waiting to be ambushed. You'd give yourself an ulcer and go out of your mind living like that. He was probably thinking about what toppings he wanted on his pizza while counting the tiles on the ceiling. Anyone who's worked in a small retail shop knows exactly what I'm talking about.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

In the OP. Good Ol' Boy described the accused burglar and his deceased accomplice as "offenders stealing but not presenting a threat to bodily harm".

Precisely. I think a premise that is being missed by a few folks in this thread is that there is indeed a threshold that must be met to deploy force, whether we like it or not.

One example of the threshold that applies here is the difference between robbery and theft. In MOST states, perhaps not all, theft of property alone does not warrant use of force.

I really hope a couple of folks responding in this thread would both educate themselves on law regarding armed defense as well as be a little more open minded, lest they find themselves in the position that the gentleman in the video is in.

 

[jmorris]

But he said that the person was advancing toward him, and the detectives have concluded that he was not.

And yet the video shows the distance between the shooter and person being shot getting smaller as the firearm was presented.

Watch the video starting and stopping it frame by frame and you can see his position begin to change as soon as the first guy enters the door. I imagine he noticed the masks before the third guy opened the door for the two that came in, or he has an incredible reaction time.

 

[jmorris]

One example of the threshold that applies here is the difference between robbery and theft.

Again, I see no evidence of either. That said you don't need to rob or steal from someone to cause them harm, serious bodily injury or death, just as robbing or stealing from someone doesn't mean you won't cause them harm, injury or death.

 

[fastbolt]

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

Why & how would the clerk be in any way expected to assess (let alone know) the criminal history of the suspects? Does previous criminal history of one or more suspects relieve the clerk of the requirement of acting lawfully in the present?

Regardless of what you decide to do, if your actions aren't subsequently determined to be necessary and reasonable under the law, you risk your actions not being considered justified under the law, and risk being held liable for unlawful conduct. (Perhaps followed by bearing responsibility under whatever civil statutes may be in place, too.)

Nobody ever said these things were simple and clear cut (far from it), or that everyone would always make the same right choices in bad situations.

Even with many, many hours of training, both at the academy level, as well as in-service (FTO, recurrent training, legal updates, etc), even LE can make the wrong calls in a crunch. Further, due to their higher level of training and expectation of a higher knowledge and the ability to apply that training and experience, they're often held to a higher standard than other private citizens, and may receive a heavier sentence, if found guilty. Then, the civil (state) and civil rights(federal) repercussions can be mind-boggling.

Even without knowing the laws of the state where this tragic incident occurred, I'd not be surprised if the store clerk accepted a plea deal for a reduced charge. If the store is insured, the company is probably going to pay out in a substantial manner, even if the defendant is tried and found guilty (that can be the nature of civil actions). Depends on the way the laws work in that state. Dunno.

 

[Kleanbore]

I really hope a couple of folks responding in this thread would both educate themselves on law regarding armed defense ..., lest they find themselves in the position that the gentleman in the video is in.

So should we all.

 

[Kleanbore]

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.

Surely you are aware that in all but two states, and only in limited circumstances in those, their past would not be relevant unless it had been known to the defendant at the time.

And no one can know the intent of anyone else.

 

[grampajack]

I really hope a couple of folks responding in this thread would both educate themselves on law regarding armed defense as well as be a little more open minded, lest they find themselves in the position that the gentleman in the video is in.

We get it. What we differ on greatly is what the definition of a reasonable person is.

But with that said, we also know exactly how reasonable juries are.

And with that said, I think we have a more rational assessment of the video. Instead of playing armchair quarterback, we're putting ourselves in the clerk's position and applying human psychology, whereas everyone else is analyzing it after the fact, and arrogantly thinking that they would have made the right decision if faced by the same circumstances.

 

[Kleanbore]

We get it. What we differ on greatly is what the definition of a reasonable person is.

Nothing to differ on, really. It is a legal term.

Instead of playing armchair quarterback, we're putting ourselves in the clerk's position and applying human psychology,

Not sure what the means, or how it would matter.....

...whereas everyone else is analyzing it after the fact, and arrogantly thinking that they would have made the right decision if faced by the same circumstances.

I'm not sure that anyone here believes that th y would always make the right decision. But we would hope to not make the wrong one and end up being charged with murder.

And on that, post # 103 would have been a good place to stop this, and it gave people some homework to do. At some point, something on Mr. Sunna's predicament will come out of Las Vegas, and someone can start another thread.