Police: Clerk "...did just what he should have done..." but still dead

[Yoda]

This is so sad. Even if you're carrying concealed, it's often best to just let an armed robbery proceed and serve as a good witness. Yet in this case, according to police, the clerk "...did just what he should have done to reduce the risk of escalated violence..." and the robbers still shot and killed him as they were leaving the store.

The question is, then, "What clues might tip you off that simple compliance may not be the best course?" Do you think there might be anything you could see that might give you a clue that the bad guy isn't going to just be content with taking the cash and leaving, or whether he wants to shoot or not is just a crap shoot.

For me, some red lines are getting herded into a back room, being told to lay face down, or ordered to turn away from the bad guys. However, these red lines don't work with guys who are on their way out of the store and then suddenly turn around and shoot.

My condolences to the family.

Here's the link:
http://www.delawareonline.com/artic...yssey=mod|newswell|text|Home|s&nclick_check=1

"A convenience store clerk, working in this country to support his family in the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, was fatally wounded early Wednesday by a masked robber who deliberately shot him as the robber was leaving the store, police said..."

"...Ullah was killed about 12:40 a.m. while working at the 7-Eleven store at 100 Four Seasons Parkway in Glasgow, where he was confronted by two masked men dressed in black, one armed with a gun."

"When they demanded money, Ullah didn’t resist, turning over an unknown sum of cash to the pair. The robbers started to run from the store, Shavack said."

'“They were almost out the door, when the armed suspect turned and deliberately shot the clerk,” Shavack said. “This was an incredulous senseless act by these thugs.”'

"Shavack said Ullah did just what he should have done to reduce the risk of escalated violence – he complied with the demand, did not resist and presented no danger to the thieves – “and they shot him.”'

Again, this is so sad and senseless.


- - - Yoda

 

[towboat_er]

If given the opportunity. Take out the BG.

 

[zxcvbob]

Why is "escalated violence" always assumed to be bad? Oh yeah, because it's not the police doing the escalating (they weren't there)

+1 on take out the BG if you get an opening.

 

[firesky101]

7-11 huh? He was also complying with company policy. Too bad. I agree any attempt to dehumanize is a really bad sign (turning away, etc.). This really seemed like the shooter was just a psychopath though and not much could have been done. Really the only thing that would have prevented this is an open game law on those who use weapons to commit crimes. Very sad we need a law for that, should just be common sense.

 

[NWGlocker]

At least they arrested suspects. RIP for the clerk.

http://www.delawareonline.com/article/20120913/NEWS01/309130072

 

[paramedic70002]

A desperate self defense shot is better than an execution.

 

[Yoda]

But the question was...

Are there any CLUES you might see that would indicate that the bad guy is going to do more than just leave with the money?

Shooting all bad guys is macho, but every round that you and the the bad guy fire have to go somewhere. I recall an incident in (IIRC) Chicago where an off-cuty cop terminated a robbery in an ice cream store by shooting the bad guy. However, one of the bad guy's rounds killed a little girl. The cop was hailed as a hero, but if you or I did that, we would rightfully be blamed for the death of the child.

Does anyone know of any subtle signs that the bad guy might wantonly shoot a clerk or customers, even after he has got the money and can leave without trouble? I'm not asking about the obvious signs that things are going very bad, like efforts to herd people into a back room.

Has there been any research on this?

- - - Yoda

 

[Blackstone]

Are there any CLUES you might see that would indicate that the bad guy is going to do more than just leave with the money?

Shooting all bad guys is macho, but every round that you and the the bad guy fire have to go somewhere. I recall an incident in (IIRC) Chicago where an off-cuty cop terminated a robbery in an ice cream store by shooting the bad guy. However, one of the bad guy's rounds killed a little girl. The cop was hailed as a hero, but if you or I did that, we would rightfully be blamed for the death of the child.

Does anyone know of any subtle signs that the bad guy might wantonly shoot a clerk or customers, even after he has got the money and can leave without trouble? I'm not asking about the obvious signs that things are going very bad, like efforts to herd people into a back room.

Has there been any research on this?

- - - Yoda

In this case, there was really no indication that the robbers (having got what they were there for) would then decide to kill the clerk. We won't know the full circumstances of what happens. Perhaps the clerk yelled something after them and that provoked the reaction.

 

[del4]

However, one of the bad guy's rounds killed a little girl. The cop was hailed as a hero, but if you or I did that, we would rightfully be blamed for the death of the



- - - Yoda

Rightfully blamed !? The bg is responsible for all shots fired from both sides since he decided to commit a crime with a gun. If you force a policeman to shoot at you, and he misses and hits someone else, you're responsible.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

 

[mljdeckard]

NO. YOU are responsible for all shots you fire. Always. Forever. If you're a civilian on the streets, or a Marine in Falluja. If it hits something, you shot it. Rule number four always applies. There may be in extremely rare circumstances, situations where you must shoot despite the risk, where not shooting is a greater risk. (Like the Aurora shooting.) To be able to justify hitting innocent bystanders, you must be able to assert that their lives were in at least as great of risk from the bad guy as they were from your STOPPING the bad guy.

To answer the OP's question, the only answer is to go with your gut. I know in my head that most robberies that happen in drugstores and banks where the criminal is not making any effort to hide his identity are drug-fueled. The only thing they care about is getting their next hit, even if they KNOW they are going to get caught. They don't care, as long as it is AFTER they get high again. The vast majority of them end with no violence at all, and many of them happen with either no weapons at all, or unloaded weapons. Just because there is a robbery happening, and I may have a shot, does not mean in and of itself that I reasonably believe someone is going to ket hurt or killed if I don't shoot. At the same time, someone who is desperate enough to do an undisguised robbery is desperate enough to do anything, and they are very unpredictable.

There is no perfect answer. Use your head, use your gut, do the best you can, but there will always be bad guys that don't follow logic and reason. some things that might make the difference for me would be reckless and dangerous gun handling. If they are running around with their finger on the trigger, and I can visually discern that the gun is definitely loaded, if the bad guy is being very violent, hitting people, demonstrating willingness to do harm, things like this, it is going to make me more likely to believe that serious injury or death is imminent.

 

[mdauben]

The cop was hailed as a hero, but if you or I did that, we would rightfully be blamed for the death of the child.

No! It is totally the fault of the filthy scum who attempted to commit armed robery in a place of buisness frequented by children. <deleted>

 

[MedWheeler]

Yes, there are some signs. The first and foremost is any effort by the suspect to isolate you from other people (including other bad guys) after he's gotten the money or whatever he demanded. Being ordered into a cooler, especially an insulated walk-in cooler, is a good sign as well, as the cooler's heavy walls can be used by a suspect to muffle the gunshot. Yet another sign is whether or not a suspect has his face fully exposed; not caring that you can see it may mean he does not intend to let you report it.
When these signs present, it becomes crucial that the victim "stay tuned", and be ready to resist by any means necessary, including flight from the scene if possible. Once the idea that one is about to be executed comes to a victim, that victim must not turn away from the suspect except in flight. No orders to turn away and/or kneel, nor any to get inside a cooler, should be followed. This is where other tactics of survival, such as "verbal judo", redirection of weapon/disarmament of suspect, or flight will come into play.
True, many people "herded" into coolers have been allowed to live, but the reality is that the risk that one may well be executed in there is too high to "go with the odds." The stakes are simply too high: live, or die.

In the case above, the article does not say where, or in what position, the clerk was when he was shot. He may well have been simply standing in his usual "customer-service" position behind the counter. This is a lesson that, even as suspect(s) are fleeing, the victim must still take a position of cover or, at the least, concealment. The threat is not over until the suspect is gone and the store's doors have been locked securely behind him.

 

[CoRoMo]

No! It is totally the fault of the filthy scum...

Not until a court of law determines so. An attorney acting on behalf of the bereaved family may be able to persuade a jury that your/my actions were simply not reasonable nor responsible. Just being in vicinity of a violent crime does not give you and I immunity to criminal charges for our negligent and irresponsible actions; if those actions are proven to be such.

 

[del4]

NO. To be able to justify hitting innocent bystanders, you must be able to assert that their lives were in at least as great of risk from the bad guy as they were from your STOPPING the bad guy.

That should be the only reason you are shooting anyway.

If you are compelled to shoot, you are trying to prevent what you perceive as a credible deadly threat to you or others, or in some cases a forcible felony. Sometimes we miss and sometimes the bullet overpenatrates. The fact remains that I would not be shooting if i weren't in danger. In these circumstances I can not control my bullets. I can't, you can't, policemen can't and the marines can't. So don't shoot?

Friendly fire happens all of the time during war. Unless gross negligence is found, that marine isn't prosecuted.


Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

 

[zxcvbob]

So during a violent crime (armed robbery is a violent crime) the best thing to do is always just roll over and die? Because if you fight back you might hurt somebody's feelings?

I intend to fight back with everything I have, if it harelips everybody on Bear Creek.

 

[Sam1911]

Friendly fire happens all of the time during war. Unless gross negligence is found, that marine isn't prosecuted.

Don't forget, though, that in the peacetime USA there is often not a protection from civil lawsuit by anyone injured (or the family of anyone killed) by your stray round. A few states do have civil immunity laws to protect you against lawsuits from the criminal or his family in cases where your actions are found justified in a criminal case, but those laws may or may not protect you from a civil suit from a third party, and some states have no such protections at all.

An officer acting in his or her duty and following the policies and training of his/her department will be indemnified against such suits. (The department's lawyers will go to bat and the department's insurance will pay any judgment awards.) You will be on your own.

You may have not acted negligently, but you can still be sued for anything from medical costs to wrongful death compensation. Usually the civil suits target whomever is seen as being a lucrative target that's likely to settle.

 

[Sam1911]

...the best thing to do is always just roll over and die? Because if you fight back you might hurt somebody's feelings?

Certainly not! Just understand that if you're unwise, inaccurate, or just plain unlucky you could end up spending your life in jail. Even if that doesn't happen, you could very easily be financially ruined by the time the civil suits are finished.

Shooting (at) someone is always the 2nd WORST outcome of any violent encounter. Better than death. But in some cases, just barely.

 

[mljdeckard]

And even in war, it's not as black and white as it should be.

I'm 2/3 of the way through Chris Kyle's biography. (SEAL sniper.) He was tasked to provide cover for an army unit moving through a hostile area. He shot an armed insurgent at distance. The locals took his rifle away and put a Koran in his hands. The dead man's wife swore to....Allah that he was an innocent man on his way to prayer at the local mosque. The army commander on the ground (obviously a new guy) believed her. Kyle was relived, sent to the rear, inquiry opened, etc. He was exonerated, but it took a long time, in a timeframe when a lot of people would have benefitted from his 220s moving down range. After the dust settled, the same unit requested support from them again. Their reply was not THR friendly.

Read what I posted again very carefully. Not just ANY violent crime means that all lives of everyone in the area was in imminent danger. If the bad guy is shooting one direction, and an innocent bystander behind him was running the OTHER direction, and you HIT that innocent bystander, you cannot convincingly say that hitting them was a better option than doing nothing. In the case of the Aurora shooter, he had effectively trapped everyone in the room in one space, and had clear intent to kill as many of them as possible. In that case, you MIGHT be able to make a case that you shooting at a bad guy surrounded by innocents was a better solution than just letting him shoot.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by Sam1911: A few states do have civil immunity laws to protect you against lawsuits from the criminal or his family in cases where your actions are found justified in a criminal case...

It is important for everyone to understand that, while the prosecution's failure to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt will result in a verdict of not guilty, that does not satisfy the civil court. A plaintiff need only prove his or her case on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence, and that means that a defendant must show by a preponderance of the evidence that his or her actions were justified. That's a much higher burden than showing reasonable doubt.

What the laws do provide for is a court decision to prevent a civil trial from proceeding, if the defendant makes his or her case.

The same principle applies in the case of laws that provide for immunity from prosecution in cases involving the justified use of force.

...but those laws may or may not protect you from a civil suit from a third party, and some states have no such protections at all.

There are those, including attorneys who may have opposed the enactment of civil immunity laws in the first place, who have opined that actors would be shielded from civil liability to third parties also in at least one state, but as of the last I heard that remained vey questionable. That is not something that legislatures do, and the courts would likely overturn any such interpretation whenever it may be tested.

 

[mljdeckard]

Yeah. I don't want to be the test case, even in Utah.

 

[SSN Vet]

Standing there and watching them walk out the door apparently cost him his life.... and they probably shot him for kicks, or out of spiteful contempt, or out of racial hatred.

If unarmed.... complying with demands makes sense WHEN they the BG has the drop on you and is in you face....

But when the BG turned his back or opens up distance, dropping down behind the counter or bolting for the back room might have save this poor chap's life.

Working at a party store certainly is a hazzardous job.

 

[del4]

Okay, removing fog of war, ambulance chasers, greedy relatives, bleeding heart juries insurgents and the like; it is still the badguy's fault if an innocent gets killed.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I997 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Sam1911]

But when the BG turned his back or opens up distance, dropping down behind the counter or bolting for the back room might have save this poor chap's life.

Certainly true.

Also remember that according to the law in most jurisdictions, if those guys got what they were after and APPEAR to be leaving, the clerk (or anyone else) would have had no justification at all for shooting at them. The threat APPEARED to have no longer been present, and a "reasonable person" would have no further reason to believe they were under an immediate fear of death or grevious harm.

Obviously, there was indeed still a threat, but at that point the only thing the clerk could have done that was lawful was to try to break contact.

 

[zxcvbob]

Let me see if I got this right... shooting the bad guy is never the right answer unless you are certain that he's gonna kill you -- which you can't know with any certainty until it is too late.

So what do you propose?

The robber doesn't care about the consequences of his actions -- or hers; let's be fair. We on the other hand (because this is The High Road) have to agonize for hours over the moral and philosophical implications of each shot. Who is going to win that fight every time?

 

[Yoda]

Widen the discussion...

Most of you have talked about your OWN bullets. But if it looks like the bad guy is simply content to walk out of the store with his loot, and you start shooting, and then he starts shooting, and one of HIS rounds hits another customer, I suspect you could get in hot water for that as well.

The CCW gives you the option of using a gun to save your life. It does not give you an obligation to enforce the law.

- - - Yoda