"I shot him. ...I can't believe I did this..."
- Thread starter Fred Fuller
- Start date
- Status
PILMAN
Member
I'm really mixed opinion on this. It sounds like the shooter could have got away without a problem. Is someone technically considered a threat if they say "I'm going to kill you" and they are in a non threatening position (only verbal) or is it only a threat if they are say in a stance to attack you while saying that?
it sounds like one persons word over the other at this point.
it sounds like one persons word over the other at this point.
RubenZ said;
Because it's very easy to make a snap judgment based on personal biases and preconceived notions. There are many who will believe (irregardless of the facts) that the shooter was right because he had a CCW permit.
Actually it is grounds to make an arrest. The wording of the law varies somewhat from state to state, but here pushing the clerk would have been battery. Depending on the circumstances it could even be aggravated battery which is a felony. In other states the charge might be assault. Same crime just a different definition of the word used to describe it.
Jeff
Because it's very easy to make a snap judgment based on personal biases and preconceived notions. There are many who will believe (irregardless of the facts) that the shooter was right because he had a CCW permit.
Actually it is grounds to make an arrest. The wording of the law varies somewhat from state to state, but here pushing the clerk would have been battery. Depending on the circumstances it could even be aggravated battery which is a felony. In other states the charge might be assault. Same crime just a different definition of the word used to describe it.
Jeff
atk
Member
RubenZ,
I don't think that anyone said that they'd shoot because they were pushed. I read the following. Note that I'm grouping the whole family as "customer" for ease of writing this.
1) undisputed Inside the store, the store owner (shooter) asked the customer to leave
2) undisputed customer assaulted store owner (or committed battery, depending upon definition).
3) unknown Degree of violence of (2) is unknown. Pushing may have caused the store owner injury, or it might have been accidental, or very light. This is completely unknown. However, it is relevant, in that (a) a violent shove with intent to harm the store owner would indicate predilection toward violence on the part of the customer, but (b) a soft or accidental push might would not.
4) undisputed Customer left store
5) undisputed Owner left store
6A) disputed Owner claims that he intended to get the customer's license plate (obviously, as already pointed out, to make a formal complaint)
6B) disputed Customer implies that owner came out to commit murder.
7A) disputed Customer claims that owner had gun in hand.
7B) disputed Owner claims he did not have a gun in hand.
8A) disputed Customer claims owner made threats.
8B) disputed Owner claims customer made threats.
9) undisputed Owner shoots customer
10) undisputed There is a voice record of the incident.
11) unknown I saw no indication of when the 911 call began (maybe I missed it). Therefore, it is unknown if it covers the threats. If either party made a threat, and the 911 call was connected, the threats should (hopefully) be audible on the 911 tape. This could prove (7A) and/or (7B)
12) unknown Some stores have cameras. This one (or one across the street) may have. If so, it could show if the owner left the store with gun in hand - or with something else in hand, like a pen or a cell phone.
I think it's pretty durn clear that (6), (7), and (8) are critical to determining whether the shoot is good or bad.
So, your question would be more accurate if you were to ask, "Is anyone willing to call the police on a guy who assaulted/battered them? And to get their license plate so that they can be identified?"
I don't think that anyone said that they'd shoot because they were pushed. I read the following. Note that I'm grouping the whole family as "customer" for ease of writing this.
1) undisputed Inside the store, the store owner (shooter) asked the customer to leave
2) undisputed customer assaulted store owner (or committed battery, depending upon definition).
3) unknown Degree of violence of (2) is unknown. Pushing may have caused the store owner injury, or it might have been accidental, or very light. This is completely unknown. However, it is relevant, in that (a) a violent shove with intent to harm the store owner would indicate predilection toward violence on the part of the customer, but (b) a soft or accidental push might would not.
4) undisputed Customer left store
5) undisputed Owner left store
6A) disputed Owner claims that he intended to get the customer's license plate (obviously, as already pointed out, to make a formal complaint)
6B) disputed Customer implies that owner came out to commit murder.
7A) disputed Customer claims that owner had gun in hand.
7B) disputed Owner claims he did not have a gun in hand.
8A) disputed Customer claims owner made threats.
8B) disputed Owner claims customer made threats.
9) undisputed Owner shoots customer
10) undisputed There is a voice record of the incident.
11) unknown I saw no indication of when the 911 call began (maybe I missed it). Therefore, it is unknown if it covers the threats. If either party made a threat, and the 911 call was connected, the threats should (hopefully) be audible on the 911 tape. This could prove (7A) and/or (7B)
12) unknown Some stores have cameras. This one (or one across the street) may have. If so, it could show if the owner left the store with gun in hand - or with something else in hand, like a pen or a cell phone.
I think it's pretty durn clear that (6), (7), and (8) are critical to determining whether the shoot is good or bad.
So, your question would be more accurate if you were to ask, "Is anyone willing to call the police on a guy who assaulted/battered them? And to get their license plate so that they can be identified?"
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
Depends totally on the situation. If I'm standing on a cliff with a hundred foot drop a few feet behind me then the answer is an unqualified and enthusiastic yes. If a plate glass window is behind me-yes.
For that matter, due to health issues, my balance isn't normal. A simple shove could put me down. I've already had several concussions...the effects of which are cumulative and can include death. With the health problems and deficits I have it's not going to take much of an attack to put me in fear of death or grave bodily injury. A jury might decide I was not reasonable but, on the other hand, that's not going to do my attacker a whole lot of good, now is it?
Basically, it's like this, if I keep my hands to myself and don't try to intimidate people then they won't have even a poor excuse to shoot, now will they?
Don't try to intimidate me....you wouldn't like me when I'm intimidated.
There are people out there who can be gravely injured with a shove. Seeing as how it's impossible to sort them out, maybe it's a good policy to keep one's mitts to oneself. To simply avoid being killed if not due to respect for the rights of other people.
There is not enough information here to decide one way or the other. In every single case of which I was cognizant of the facts, the news reports had major errors and omissions. Anyone have reason to believe this is not the case on this event?
Things like this should be a lesson to home and business owners to have good video surveillance of their land that will record audio as well as motion video and not just a single still picture every 30 seconds or so .
All of the stories like this from news are all unconfirmed because non of us were there and if we were would all the other members believe that persons story ?
Far to many people in todays world have little experience with the general public and the bizarre things they do , those same people love to think of their kids as little angels who would do this or that .
Let me tell you all something I've spent most of my life working with the public in one manner or the other and and most of you need to take off your rose colored glasses and wake up !
I've seen 30 YO men hand a glass of whiskey to their 13 YO nephew and ask him if he was "Man enough to drink it" while standing in front of the Bar window , knowing full well it was illegal . Other men well in there 30's hitting on 14-16 little girls and continue after being told how old the girls were . Little girls all but doing a strip tease for teenage boys and then listening to their mother howl because "that didn't sound like something their daughter would do" despite 4 adults who were supervising the group activity having witnessed it all .
Adults standing in a public bathroom at the sink doing Coke and then want to throw a fit when they're being arrested for it .
Yes the store owner could be at fault and at the same time yes he could simply have been doing what he thought was correct and trying to get the license number of the car and the customer completely lost it because he figured he wasn't at fault and would never think he and his "Darling little angels" could ever do any wrong and should be allowed to wreck up a business as long as they paid for a service and never be called on it .
With the exception of the shooting I have seen or been involved in situations like this a thousand times and often it would have escalated to violence if I hadn't made the customer understand I fully intended to beat him half to death if touched anyone especially me .
If there is one thing all of you should learn it is that the human animal does some incredibly stupid things even when they know better, just because they feel like it .
All of the stories like this from news are all unconfirmed because non of us were there and if we were would all the other members believe that persons story ?
Far to many people in todays world have little experience with the general public and the bizarre things they do , those same people love to think of their kids as little angels who would do this or that .
Let me tell you all something I've spent most of my life working with the public in one manner or the other and and most of you need to take off your rose colored glasses and wake up !
I've seen 30 YO men hand a glass of whiskey to their 13 YO nephew and ask him if he was "Man enough to drink it" while standing in front of the Bar window , knowing full well it was illegal . Other men well in there 30's hitting on 14-16 little girls and continue after being told how old the girls were . Little girls all but doing a strip tease for teenage boys and then listening to their mother howl because "that didn't sound like something their daughter would do" despite 4 adults who were supervising the group activity having witnessed it all .
Adults standing in a public bathroom at the sink doing Coke and then want to throw a fit when they're being arrested for it .
Yes the store owner could be at fault and at the same time yes he could simply have been doing what he thought was correct and trying to get the license number of the car and the customer completely lost it because he figured he wasn't at fault and would never think he and his "Darling little angels" could ever do any wrong and should be allowed to wreck up a business as long as they paid for a service and never be called on it .
With the exception of the shooting I have seen or been involved in situations like this a thousand times and often it would have escalated to violence if I hadn't made the customer understand I fully intended to beat him half to death if touched anyone especially me .
If there is one thing all of you should learn it is that the human animal does some incredibly stupid things even when they know better, just because they feel like it .
Buttermilk
Member
Amen Big 001!! Very well stated! In this curent Me!Me!Me! generation, where everyone has been raised by Dr. Spocks recommendations, and they will never admit to being wrong, these occurences are becoming more commonplace. The one thing I always told a complainant was to always get a license number. There are millions of white cars or trucks or whatever,but a license number singles them out and gives us a starting point. A touch, in Texas, is an assault and can be prosecuted as such when there are exigent circumstances. Children who have never had to feel restraint, discipline(Dr. Spock method) rebel big time when they first experience it and parents, who have never taught restraint, discipline, respect for others, proper demeanor in public, are very prone to respond incorrectly when asked to leave or restrain their children. (Ergo; Paris Hilton, her mother telling the Judge he is "pathetic",) etc.. What do kids expect when they have spineless, gutless parents who just want to be friends with their kids and not parents.
Cosmoline
Member
Rule 1--don't shoot your mouth off to the 911 dispatcher. Keep it simple, resist the urge to tell all to the first person you see. In this case, given that the dead guy was apparently UNARMED, I'd say the fellow should have kept his mouth shut tight until he got his lawyer. Whatever the facts are, his 911 tape will not help him. He's established that he fellow PUSHED him and came at him like he was going to PUNCH him. That can be used to show the threat level was not sufficient to justify deadly force. Keep your mouths SHUT!
Something doesn't seem right here, not at all. Two possible, and drastically different, scenarios as I see it:
1) kids are making noise. Store owner goes up and aggressively addresses the parents to keep their kids in line and grabs victim. Victim pushes him off and leaves store with family. Store owner goes out with gun and executes the guy for the personal offense.
2) kids are making noise. Store owner goes up and asks guy to leave/settle his store. Guy resists, goes up to owner threateningly and pushes him, then leaves store with family (this doesn't make any sense to me, personally - it doesn't follow a pattern of behavior, especially if you consider the guy was supposedly mild-mannered). Store owner goes outside with gun in hand to get license plate (yeah, that makes sense), and then gets threatened and approached again by the guy. Shoots guy.
Which makes more sense to you, while being consistent with the known facts and the sides as stated? Either way, the articles don't provide nearly enough information. We don't know the positioning of the bodies, etc.
And personally, I see no reason why the cousin (or any of the rest of the family) would have a reason to lie, except revenge. But if their stories are consistent, well...
I have to wonder: what kind of name is "Eli Eliyahu"? It would appear that he (or his parents) may be recent immigrants to the country (last ~20 years) due to the fact that he has a passport and that his name is a bit peculiar. Jewish? Arab (ie Lebanon maybe)? Indian? I don't know. What I do know is that, given how many witnesses there were, it should have been a black-and-white conviction: either murder, or justifiable self-defense.
You're right - his behavior there is quite suspicious. Why would the first thing you mention be that you had a CCW permit? That's just odd, if nothing else.
1) kids are making noise. Store owner goes up and aggressively addresses the parents to keep their kids in line and grabs victim. Victim pushes him off and leaves store with family. Store owner goes out with gun and executes the guy for the personal offense.
2) kids are making noise. Store owner goes up and asks guy to leave/settle his store. Guy resists, goes up to owner threateningly and pushes him, then leaves store with family (this doesn't make any sense to me, personally - it doesn't follow a pattern of behavior, especially if you consider the guy was supposedly mild-mannered). Store owner goes outside with gun in hand to get license plate (yeah, that makes sense), and then gets threatened and approached again by the guy. Shoots guy.
Which makes more sense to you, while being consistent with the known facts and the sides as stated? Either way, the articles don't provide nearly enough information. We don't know the positioning of the bodies, etc.
And personally, I see no reason why the cousin (or any of the rest of the family) would have a reason to lie, except revenge. But if their stories are consistent, well...
I have to wonder: what kind of name is "Eli Eliyahu"? It would appear that he (or his parents) may be recent immigrants to the country (last ~20 years) due to the fact that he has a passport and that his name is a bit peculiar. Jewish? Arab (ie Lebanon maybe)? Indian? I don't know. What I do know is that, given how many witnesses there were, it should have been a black-and-white conviction: either murder, or justifiable self-defense.
You're right - his behavior there is quite suspicious. Why would the first thing you mention be that you had a CCW permit? That's just odd, if nothing else.
BullfrogKen
Moderator Emeritus
Very few things are black and white. Especially dynamic human interactions which result in violence.
Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. The more witnesses present, the different the stories become. Even when everyone tells the truth. People simply see things differently, interpret things differently, and usually only see incomplete parts of the whole picture. The number of witnesses don't make it any easier; it usually makes it more difficult to find out what actually happened.
Lonestar49
Member
That's why I wouldn't be on the Jury
Quote: riginally Posted by Lonestar49
I'd be out, as it seems obvious, that the store owner had a short temper with kids, let alone a family doing business in his store.
--------------
Answer Quote:
He asked them to leave because the children were a nuisance inside the store, the father retaliated by assaulting him; how does that add up to Eliyahu having a short temper? If anything it shows that Pope had a short temper as well as an inability to control his children.
-----------------------
...
Even if your take is right, once they left the store, and I assume, they didn't "steal anything", and words were exchanged, no doubts, but in my book, the clerk/owner, made the big NO NO going outside, when the problem had already left the store without any physical damage or harm done.
So, he, the store owner, with gun, kept it escalating, even with an "excuse" that he went out to get a licence number over a verbal threat. And we will never know who threatened who, unless it's recorded. Again, I think 2 tempers were at work here, one with a gun, one without..
LS
Quote: riginally Posted by Lonestar49
I'd be out, as it seems obvious, that the store owner had a short temper with kids, let alone a family doing business in his store.
--------------
Answer Quote:
He asked them to leave because the children were a nuisance inside the store, the father retaliated by assaulting him; how does that add up to Eliyahu having a short temper? If anything it shows that Pope had a short temper as well as an inability to control his children.
-----------------------
...
Even if your take is right, once they left the store, and I assume, they didn't "steal anything", and words were exchanged, no doubts, but in my book, the clerk/owner, made the big NO NO going outside, when the problem had already left the store without any physical damage or harm done.
So, he, the store owner, with gun, kept it escalating, even with an "excuse" that he went out to get a licence number over a verbal threat. And we will never know who threatened who, unless it's recorded. Again, I think 2 tempers were at work here, one with a gun, one without..
LS
Fred Fuller
Moderator Emeritus
I posted this here in S&T for one reason- I literally cringed when I heard the words and the tone of voice on that 911 tape. The transcript is in the second article I posted- go back and read those words again.
And think about how this will sound when it gets played for the jury. "I just shot him... I can't believe I did this..." I have no idea what was on his mind, but that was a terrible choice of words to use no matter what he was trying to say.
lpl/nc
And think about how this will sound when it gets played for the jury. "I just shot him... I can't believe I did this..." I have no idea what was on his mind, but that was a terrible choice of words to use no matter what he was trying to say.
lpl/nc
sm
member
BullfrogKen's post # 38
Lee Lapin's post #42
Having been in a courtroom, whether the Foreman, or regular member of a jury ,or in another capacity in a court of law/ hearing, these two posts wring so TRUE.
Rule 1. Shut up.
Rule 2. "I am not feeling well, I would like to assist you Officers, I really need to speak to my attorney please...I really do not feel well...
Rule 3. Assume nothing, trust nobody.
Write it down. Have the Attorney write it down.
You just thought getting up in front of classmates to share was something, doing the Courtroom bit is going to totally blow your mind.
Exclusions happen during a serious matter, write it down and keep writing it down as you recall things. Go over any little detail with attorney.
The other Attorney(s) are going to try to trip you up.
Even on something simple as your name.
If you go by your middle name for instance, and being asked if that is "your name" - you had better practiced saying "It is my middle name that I prefer to go by".
A jury will get "impressions" and getting "caught" about your name not really your Christian name - is / can be a huge mark against you from the get-go.
Everyone should sit in on some court cases if they can, a whole lot can be gleaned from doing so.
Lee Lapin's post #42
Having been in a courtroom, whether the Foreman, or regular member of a jury ,or in another capacity in a court of law/ hearing, these two posts wring so TRUE.
Rule 1. Shut up.
Rule 2. "I am not feeling well, I would like to assist you Officers, I really need to speak to my attorney please...I really do not feel well...
Rule 3. Assume nothing, trust nobody.
Write it down. Have the Attorney write it down.
You just thought getting up in front of classmates to share was something, doing the Courtroom bit is going to totally blow your mind.
Exclusions happen during a serious matter, write it down and keep writing it down as you recall things. Go over any little detail with attorney.
The other Attorney(s) are going to try to trip you up.
Even on something simple as your name.
If you go by your middle name for instance, and being asked if that is "your name" - you had better practiced saying "It is my middle name that I prefer to go by".
A jury will get "impressions" and getting "caught" about your name not really your Christian name - is / can be a huge mark against you from the get-go.
Everyone should sit in on some court cases if they can, a whole lot can be gleaned from doing so.
Im283
Member
I will respond before reading the balance of the thread so all of the THR member opinions do not taint my own.
I think the shooter is screwed. Based on the two news stories, the dead man had left the store and the shooter followed him outside. This sounds to me like he escalated the situation. He may or may not have been able to get a license number from in the store, but he certainly did not take the high road by going out there.
When in these situations we all need to remember to not escalate things. Turning the other cheek is advice that we should all wish the shooter had followed. The shooter also erred in the fact he caused confontation with a customer. Kindly ask the customer to leave, I am willing to bet he was not asking nicely. IMHO if you run a beachwear shop in a vacation town you must clearly be emotionally prepared to not let little kids get under your skin.
I think he will be found guilty based on the fact as I know them. Had he not gone out there would have been no shooting.
A few of you mentioned Castle Doctrine. I may well be wrong on this but isn't the Castle Doctrine for the purpose of keeping a civil lawsuit from being pressed against a shooter who is not charged in criminal court, or who is found not guilty in criminal court. Contingent upon this doesn't the shooting have to happen INSIDE your home (hotel room, RV set up for a nights stay, etc)? You are not in your Castle if you are outside. Please straighten me out if I am interpreting this wrong.
I think the shooter is screwed. Based on the two news stories, the dead man had left the store and the shooter followed him outside. This sounds to me like he escalated the situation. He may or may not have been able to get a license number from in the store, but he certainly did not take the high road by going out there.
When in these situations we all need to remember to not escalate things. Turning the other cheek is advice that we should all wish the shooter had followed. The shooter also erred in the fact he caused confontation with a customer. Kindly ask the customer to leave, I am willing to bet he was not asking nicely. IMHO if you run a beachwear shop in a vacation town you must clearly be emotionally prepared to not let little kids get under your skin.
I think he will be found guilty based on the fact as I know them. Had he not gone out there would have been no shooting.
A few of you mentioned Castle Doctrine. I may well be wrong on this but isn't the Castle Doctrine for the purpose of keeping a civil lawsuit from being pressed against a shooter who is not charged in criminal court, or who is found not guilty in criminal court. Contingent upon this doesn't the shooting have to happen INSIDE your home (hotel room, RV set up for a nights stay, etc)? You are not in your Castle if you are outside. Please straighten me out if I am interpreting this wrong.
Last edited:
Feanaro
Member
Rather than arguing about whodunnit, let's pretend we are in the Strategy and Tactics forum for a minute and try to learn something.
Sit down, shut up, and don't admit to liability. Even if our shooter did everything else right, that 911 phone call will cause him a great deal of grief. Don't expect to automatically say the right thing. Think of something to say first and practice it.
Sit down, shut up, and don't admit to liability. Even if our shooter did everything else right, that 911 phone call will cause him a great deal of grief. Don't expect to automatically say the right thing. Think of something to say first and practice it.
Valkman
Member
The way it looks here he shot out of anger and not self defense. Unless the dead guy was twice his size or there are medical problems with the shooter that would make a fight a deadly encounter that dude is going away.
Ok boys and girls, Lee posted this in S&T so we could discuss what to do and what not to do. No one here is on the jury. No one here will be on the jury. If you think it was a good shoot or not is irrelevant.
Let's limit discussion to how to deal with the situation after you used eadly force.
Jeff
Let's limit discussion to how to deal with the situation after you used eadly force.
Jeff
alligator94
Member
Everyone calm down. As of now there is not enough information to decide who was right and who was wrong. If I remember correctly a while back there was a similar case in Georgia? About someone with a concealed carry permit shooting someone. At the time based on supposedly "eyewitness" accounts everyone assumed he was guilty. Yet the grand jury chose not to indict him.
Why he was charged with Vol Mans:
1. Dead guy advanced on clerk;
2. Clerk had the right to respond with reasonable force;
3. Shooting the unarmed dead guy as he advanced was excessive force.
If clerk had been a woman, or dead guy was a huge steroid monster, what is reasonable may have been different. Maybe we'll find more facts that make it seem reasonable. But at this point, this looks like the typical clerk-kills-customer voluntary manslaughters I have seen in my career.
-David
1. Dead guy advanced on clerk;
2. Clerk had the right to respond with reasonable force;
3. Shooting the unarmed dead guy as he advanced was excessive force.
If clerk had been a woman, or dead guy was a huge steroid monster, what is reasonable may have been different. Maybe we'll find more facts that make it seem reasonable. But at this point, this looks like the typical clerk-kills-customer voluntary manslaughters I have seen in my career.
-David
fireflyfather
Member
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2006
- Messages
- 807
A couple points:
1. Dr spock is one of the great disciplinarians. If you haven't actually raised kids or even bothered to read the book carefully, you probably shouldn't be making unsubstantiated claims about the breakdown of society due to his parenting advice.
2. Everyone is talking like the guy walked out of the store with gun in hand. Last time I checked, it was called a CONCEALED weapons permit, and it is DISPUTED whether or not he had gun in hand at the time. Try to remember that. From a tactical point of view, it would be STUPID to walk out of the store with a gun in hand at this point, especially if you are ALREADY on the phone, as the article seemed to indicate. If he really did want only to get a license number of the person who commited a crime against him, what, was he supposed to leave a gun he (conceivably) always wore behind? Again, not enough data either way. I hope none of you guys would be on any jury I was facing, since you seem to have made up your mind before hearing even half the evidence, and don't want to presume innocence.
3. From a tactical point of view, and just for the sake of the argument, let's assume that the deceased is a fairly large guy who knocked the store clerk, a scrawny guy, flat on his butt, and made menacing comments on his way out of the store. Owner, fearing that this person might return and cause more trouble, or file a descrimination lawsuit/pursue other legal or less than legal harassment, decides to call the police and file a complaint. Now, should he step outside into the parking lot (what, three feet outside the door? thirty feet?), and should he leave his weapon behind when he does so (are you kidding me?), or pick it up from under the counter and stuff it in his pocket? Now that he is there, and said big guy decides that he doesn't want the store owner to know his license plate # (because he knows he's already in deep ***** for attacking him already) decides to advance in a threatening manner on a guy holding a notepad and pencil, does he run away? (Can he run away?) Does he defend himself from some irrational coked out or drunk weightlifter or "thug"? Again, way too many variables for us to make a good call.
4. If he was walking outside to inflict revenge, why call 911 to have it recorded by police? I mean, come on. Did nobody else get that? That clearly speaks to intent. Doesn't exonerate him if it was excessive force, but makes pre-meditated execution look pretty unlikely.
5. Why would a whole family say the kind of things about the store owner? Revenge and/or emotional shock coupled with family-colored glasses (Johnny would never attack that man...so it must be that co#$-*&cker store owner's fault...yeah, he murdered him in cold blood with no warning....yeah!). I mean, this dead guy learned to push people around somewhere...maybe from his family?
Other points are too clouded for good analysis. Oh, one last thing, the guy was part of a larger group who were asked to leave. Not much was made of that, for one reason or another, but just how many were there? How many were adults? How many were physically fit males? Maybe the defense attourney is waiting to bring that up, maybe it was only the one adult male, now deceased.
From a tactical point of view, the owner did a few things right: He called the cops and tried to be a good witness (license #).
Things he did poorly: Ran his mouth on 911 and misread his assailant's level of anger and/or willingness to intimidate a victim of a previous crime.
1. Dr spock is one of the great disciplinarians. If you haven't actually raised kids or even bothered to read the book carefully, you probably shouldn't be making unsubstantiated claims about the breakdown of society due to his parenting advice.
2. Everyone is talking like the guy walked out of the store with gun in hand. Last time I checked, it was called a CONCEALED weapons permit, and it is DISPUTED whether or not he had gun in hand at the time. Try to remember that. From a tactical point of view, it would be STUPID to walk out of the store with a gun in hand at this point, especially if you are ALREADY on the phone, as the article seemed to indicate. If he really did want only to get a license number of the person who commited a crime against him, what, was he supposed to leave a gun he (conceivably) always wore behind? Again, not enough data either way. I hope none of you guys would be on any jury I was facing, since you seem to have made up your mind before hearing even half the evidence, and don't want to presume innocence.
3. From a tactical point of view, and just for the sake of the argument, let's assume that the deceased is a fairly large guy who knocked the store clerk, a scrawny guy, flat on his butt, and made menacing comments on his way out of the store. Owner, fearing that this person might return and cause more trouble, or file a descrimination lawsuit/pursue other legal or less than legal harassment, decides to call the police and file a complaint. Now, should he step outside into the parking lot (what, three feet outside the door? thirty feet?), and should he leave his weapon behind when he does so (are you kidding me?), or pick it up from under the counter and stuff it in his pocket? Now that he is there, and said big guy decides that he doesn't want the store owner to know his license plate # (because he knows he's already in deep ***** for attacking him already) decides to advance in a threatening manner on a guy holding a notepad and pencil, does he run away? (Can he run away?) Does he defend himself from some irrational coked out or drunk weightlifter or "thug"? Again, way too many variables for us to make a good call.
4. If he was walking outside to inflict revenge, why call 911 to have it recorded by police? I mean, come on. Did nobody else get that? That clearly speaks to intent. Doesn't exonerate him if it was excessive force, but makes pre-meditated execution look pretty unlikely.
5. Why would a whole family say the kind of things about the store owner? Revenge and/or emotional shock coupled with family-colored glasses (Johnny would never attack that man...so it must be that co#$-*&cker store owner's fault...yeah, he murdered him in cold blood with no warning....yeah!). I mean, this dead guy learned to push people around somewhere...maybe from his family?
Other points are too clouded for good analysis. Oh, one last thing, the guy was part of a larger group who were asked to leave. Not much was made of that, for one reason or another, but just how many were there? How many were adults? How many were physically fit males? Maybe the defense attourney is waiting to bring that up, maybe it was only the one adult male, now deceased.
From a tactical point of view, the owner did a few things right: He called the cops and tried to be a good witness (license #).
Things he did poorly: Ran his mouth on 911 and misread his assailant's level of anger and/or willingness to intimidate a victim of a previous crime.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked