KCMO Robbery leads to CCW holder shooting robber

Status
Not open for further replies.
I definitely agree that the robbery victim was in the right. Will a jury see it that way? I have no clue. However, they should. The robbery victim was clearly not trying to kill the guy to get his stuff back - otherwise, he would have just pulled the trigger instead of yelling "stop." He was just trying to get his stuff (and probably hold the guy for police, thus stopping future robberies) when the robber responded by putting the victim in danger. The victim responds by removing the danger. Duh. One could say that the victim aggravated the robber by pointing a gun first. However, who caused the victim to point his gun in the first place?

~Dale
 
Last I checked more than 1 would be numerous. ;)
Click to expand...

...but it never fails that there are usually several posters in any thread of this type with the response of "he/she should have just let this guy go".
Click to expand...
How many is several, the last time you checked....? ;)
 
If the robber had just started running away faster but the fellow still shot him - in the back - perhaps we'd have an issue to debate. He didn't; the robber turned around and threatened the guy. Even by strict standards of self defense, this fellow was defending himself from a direct threat of deadly force when he fired.
 
It is sad that even in a RKBA related forum people second guess the decision made by others in a life-death situation.

The victim didn't shoot the robber in back.
The victim didn't have robber kneel down beg for mercy then execute him.
The victim didn't even try to STOP the robber physically, he simply yelled STOP.

So if you yell STOP and someone points a gun at you... what? at that point you gave up your right for self defense.
Is the law something like this:
"Any citizen uttering the words STOP or any similar words with meaning to stop moving, or desist their current action give up any and all rights to self defense as listed in section 123.a".

If you yell STOP and someone points a gun at you at that point you just should take a round to the chest because the DA might prosecute you?

Hell no. BG points gun at you = threat of danger to life or bodily harm = BG takes a bullet. PERIOD!

BG had lot of choices:
1) Don't rob people
2) Run away
3) Drop stolen goods.
4) Stay there and accept responsibility for his actions.

BG chose to threaten a law abiding citizen with deadly force. BG gets shot. Looks like "no bill" to me. A good DA would simply decline to prosecute.
 
How many is several, the last time you checked....?
Click to expand...

1. If you read the quote that you posted you will note that I was referring to any thread of this type and not solely this one.

2. This thread was just recently posted, give it time I'm sure more naysayers will be along.

3. sev·er·al Audio Help /ˈsɛvərəl, ˈsɛvrəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sev-er-uhl, sev-ruhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. being more than two but fewer than many in number or kind: several ways of doing it.
2. respective; individual: They went their several ways.
3. separate; different: several occasions.
4. single; particular.
5. Law. binding two or more persons who may be sued separately on a common obligation.

;)
 
Im not sure who the people who are knocking this guy are. I think everyone in here agrees he did the right thing. The only thing being said is some of us are worried that a bunch of liberal sheeple on the jury will not see it that way. It would not be the first time a jury of our peers got it all wrong. I hope we are wrong. Personally I feel this guy did nothing wrong. But I am not the DA or nor will I be on the jury.
 
me! said:
That puts this one into iffy legal territory, though still solid moral ground IMO
Click to expand...
Oh yes, I am attacking the victim quite harshly here. The distinction that the legal system is goofy and men can goto jail for doing the right thing is too complex I guess. Romeo similiar hedged his posts by saying that legal troubles may arise, though he has no moral issues with the shoot. If you think this shoot is 100% clean legally, then you do not live in the same world I do - a world with a flawed legal system.
 
he'll be fine

The robber turned around and pointed his gun at the man
Click to expand...

The robber won't be doing that anymore.
Even in Sanfrancisco he would be no billed.
 
I've read and re-read the original post. Some confusion is apparant here. The robbery victim was NOT the shooter, the shooter was apparantly a passer-by who observed an armed robbery, attempted to stop/detain the aggressor who turned and pointed a firearm at him. I think the SHOOTER responded properly to the threat. How the lawyers interpret the actions will determine the outcome (in any case a lawyer will make a bundle from defending a "good shoot" IMHO)
 
Larry Corriea taught is in the our CCW class, that even though the original aggressor has his back turned, he's still a threat. Therefore, a "shot in the back" can be more than justifiable.

Now, Maybe the shooter was simply using force to perform a citizen arrest. Is this beyond the scope of the situation because the robber had a gun? I wouldn't think so. And then, because the robber aimed his gun, he went from passive but still immediate threat, to real threat. Thus, the shooter had the reason to use force.


I wouldn't try the shooter. Unfortunately though, Morals and laws all to often conflict themselves. Good that the scum is off the street though.
 
I have three points. First, I support the shooter, whole-heartedly and I will make a contribution to any defense fund legitimately for the shooter.

Second, The shooter was the robbery victim, not a bystander:

It appears he was attempting to rob two victim's at gunpoint near the ATM when one of the victim's brandished a handgun and shot him in self defense. Both victim's along with several witnesses are being interviewed in regard.
Click to expand...

Third, the outcome of this is going to weigh heavily on what those "several witnesses" have to say.
 
Not sure if this is the same story or not:

UPDATE: Victim shoots ATM robber in the head
KMBC says that Clay County prosecutors have filed charges against a man who allegedly robbed a couple at a Northland ATM this weekend and was then shot in the head. Snip:

Prosecutors said no charges will be filed against the man who shot Johnson."It's clear from the statement he gave police that the victim felt his life or his wife's life was at risk," prosecutor Dan White said in a news release. "The shooting appears completely justifiable."
Click to expand...


Looks like good news if this is the same story.
 
If the victim does get indicted, it sounds like a perfect case for Jury Nullification.
 
Kevin, I agree that most are not disagreeing that the Self-Defense act was a good thing. They are just recognizing that in many states, shooting a fleeing robber outside of the home will not be properly viewed as "self defense".

For myself, I'm happy that the victim had guts and acted on his best instincts to protect himself and his fellow citizens.

This is one of the things that should be changed at law in this country. We've got to stop protecting the criminal and persecuting the law abiding citizen. :):):uhoh::uhoh:
 
Fleeing?

. . .shooting a fleeing robber . . .
Click to expand...

Last time I looked, it's really hard to aim a gun at someone while fleeing from him.

If you turn and point a gun at someone, you're no longer fleeing.
 
We don't need, nor are we compelled to provide a safe working environment for criminals.

Those that ignore history on this do so at their own peril.

When you want more of something - subsidize it. Want more criminals - don't fight back.

My hat is off to the good guy that assisted the criminal's transition to room temperature. I hope he fare's well.
 
I have to agree with the robbery victim on this; it's one thing to get robbed by some thug, it's completely different if that thug is brandishing some weapon. Also, it's not like the victim shot the criminal in the back, the guy turned around with intent to kill. The very fact that he had a weapon means that he had the intent to hurt/kill someone if they got in the way of him taking their stuff. The second he made that decision he forfeited his right to, in this case, life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Man overcomes robber, beats him with gun, police say
Replies
12
Views
924
BluesBear
B
M
  • Locked
TX - Police say latest invasion robbery similar to others
Replies
10
Views
847
JohnKSa
JohnKSa
L
  • Locked
Robber's Gun Breaks Into Pieces During Holdup
2 3
Replies
55
Views
7K
moga
M
D
  • Locked
(GA) Victims foil robbery attempt
Replies
21
Views
941
TallPine
T
U
  • Locked
Permit to Carry holder shoots robbery suspect
2 3
Replies
58
Views
3K
TexasRifleman
T
Back
Top