Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 44

Thread: Clerk shoots robber armed with knife, may face charges (Security Video)

  1. #1
    Regular Member TheGrabber's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Huron County, Michigan
    Posts
    44

    Clerk shoots robber armed with knife, may face charges (Security Video)

    https://www.thetimesherald.com/artic...Store-shooting

    Prosecutors are still awaiting more information before deciding if a store clerk will be charged in a shooting of a man armed with a knife and attempting to rob the store.

    Michael Honyoust, 28, of Bellevue died from a gunshot wound to the head after clerk Pardeep Singh, 39, fired a handgun during what he said was a robbery attempt at Liberty Convenience Store at 439 Capital Ave. N.E. on Dec. 3. Calhoun County Prosecutor Susan Mladenoff said Monday she didnít have results of an autopsy, including information about the location and direction of the bullet wound, and didnít want to make a decision without that information. Her term ended Monday and the report on the shooting will be turned over to incoming Prosecutor David Gilbert for a decision, she said.
    I'm not a lawyer, psychologist, or LEO. This means, don't rely on my opinion to work for you.
    But I am a railroad conductor.
    ďBreathes their a man with a soul so dead, that does not thrill to the sound of a passing train?Ē

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by TheGrabber View Post
    https://www.thetimesherald.com/artic...Store-shooting

    Prosecutors are still awaiting more information before deciding if a store clerk will be charged in a shooting of a man armed with a knife and attempting to rob the store.

    Michael Honyoust, 28, of Bellevue died from a gunshot wound to the head after clerk Pardeep Singh, 39, fired a handgun during what he said was a robbery attempt at Liberty Convenience Store at 439 Capital Ave. N.E. on Dec. 3. Calhoun County Prosecutor Susan Mladenoff said Monday she didnít have results of an autopsy, including information about the location and direction of the bullet wound, and didnít want to make a decision without that information. Her term ended Monday and the report on the shooting will be turned over to incoming Prosecutor David Gilbert for a decision, she said.
    Yeah, because it could be, you know, the old trick of murdering a rival somewhere else, then faking a store security video with an actor-accomplice to show a robbery. Real common deception back in the 1930s. All the gangsters did it. /sarcasm
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    well the legal issue would be directly related to where in the head he was shot, to an extent. if the robber starts to flee, you can't shoot them in the back of the head after they try to get away. justified lethal force is only when the person is about to attack you, or already in the act of attacking you. so a shot to the back of the head would be an execution, not self defense. the only way thta could be a defensive act would be if the robber turned and was about to attack a different person in the store. then it wouldnt be self defense, it would be defending an innocent bystander which is also justifiable.
    but the most important part is that you CAN NOT shoot a person if they are attempting to leave the scene, that is homicide, no matter what the person has already accomplished short of murder
    Last edited by motoxmann; 01-19-2013 at 07:58 PM.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by motoxmann View Post
    well the legal issue would be directly related to where in the head he was shot, to an extent. if the robber starts to flee, you can't shoot them in the back of the head after they try to get away. justified lethal force is only when the person is about to attack you, or already in the act of attacking you. so a shot to the back of the head would be an execution, not self defense. the only way thta could be a defensive act would be if the robber turned and was about to attack a different person in the store. then it wouldnt be self defense, it would be defending an innocent bystander which is also justifiable.
    but the most important part is that you CAN NOT shoot a person if they are attempting to leave the scene, that is homicide, no matter what the person has already accomplished short of murder
    I gotta admit, you got a point there. The assailant was armed with a knife, so a back-of-the-head shot wouldn't look good.

    If the BG has a gun, I'm less certain. It seems to me that I would have no way of knowing for certain the BG wasn't just moving to cover, intending to turn and continue the fight from cover. The law says what it says, but I'm not convinced its right.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Can't get the linked video to load or play and going to the link lower on the paper's page get a "not available" response....
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  6. #6
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Yuma, Arizona, USA
    Posts
    923

    it is more complicated than that

    Quote Originally Posted by motoxmann View Post
    well the legal issue would be directly related to where in the head he was shot, to an extent. if the robber starts to flee, you can't shoot them in the back of the head after they try to get away. justified lethal force is only when the person is about to attack you, or already in the act of attacking you. so a shot to the back of the head would be an execution, not self defense. the only way thta could be a defensive act would be if the robber turned and was about to attack a different person in the store. then it wouldnt be self defense, it would be defending an innocent bystander which is also justifiable.
    but the most important part is that you CAN NOT shoot a person if they are attempting to leave the scene, that is homicide, no matter what the person has already accomplished short of murder
    A lot depends on the dynamics involved. Self defense situations are rarely static, things and people move fast. The guy with a knife might have taken a swing at the defender as they were drawing and the shot fired as they turned their head.

    You cannot reach conclusions based only on the placement of the shot. It takes time to decide to shoot, and time to pull the trigger. A lot can happen in 3/4 of a second.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by ccwinstructor View Post
    A lot depends on the dynamics involved. Self defense situations are rarely static, things and people move fast. The guy with a knife might have taken a swing at the defender as they were drawing and the shot fired as they turned their head.

    You cannot reach conclusions based only on the placement of the shot. It takes time to decide to shoot, and time to pull the trigger. A lot can happen in 3/4 of a second.
    This.

    I can't watch th vid atm but just because someone is shot in the back doesn't mwan it isnt justified. Now if the person is clearly fleeing that is one thing (unless they made a comment about returning with another weapon) but if one is in the middle of drawing/firing and the target decides to flee there very well might not be enough time to process the fact that they are fleeing. And then comes the question of trying to determine if they are fleeing or simply going for cover.

  8. #8
    Regular Member R027's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Woodbridge VA
    Posts
    35

  9. #9
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    I'll admit, all posts countering mine also make a good point

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Mountain Home, Arkansas, United States
    Posts
    400
    The recently departed was not running away according to the video I saw.
    Last edited by Packer fan; 01-26-2013 at 04:57 AM.
    Don't confuse me with the facts, I have my emotions!

    I guess that's the difference between no crime and "stopping" a crime in progress. I prefer no crime.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by Packer fan View Post
    The recently departed was not running away according to the video I saw.
    Packer fan is correct on this one ... have a wheel of cheese

    Oh Bret, oh Bret OH BRET !!!!

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Corryton
    Posts
    85
    I wasn't able to get the video to load yet, so this might just be me talking out of complete ignorance, but the fact that he shot him in the head leads me to believe that he will have legal trouble over this because even in a self defense situation you're not allowed to shoot with the intent to kill, only with the intent to stop the attack. There's a lot of subjectiveness to that though since only the clerk knows for sure what his intent was when he pulled the trigger, but if the prosecutor thinks there is enough evidence that he shot with the intent to kill then he may well face charges. I think he will ultimately beat any criminal charges brought against him though.

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Corryton
    Posts
    85
    Ok I just got the video to load, clearly the perp was running at the clerk full force, in a situation like that it's understandable, no charges will be filed over this if the DA doesn't want to be BADLY embarrassed and possibly sued for malicious prosecution.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Can you cite a law that says you may not defend yourself with a shot to kill?

    I recommend always saying that you were in fear of your life and tried to STOP the bad guy. Not because only shots to stop are legal, but because it will play better when the prosecutor is exercising discretion as well as in front of a jury if the case gets that far.

    BTW, the shot to kill looks exactly the same as the shot to stop, the only difference is the motivation behind the shot.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Corryton
    Posts
    85
    It's what I was taught in my HCP class eye95, they even teach you to ONLY state that you shot to stop the attack when questioned by police.

    BTW, the shot to kill looks exactly the same as the shot to stop, the only difference is the motivation behind the shot. .
    That's true in reverse but not necessarily the way you put it. A shot to stop that kills looks like a shot to kill, but some shots to kill are obviously not shots to stop an attack, IE, execution style shooting to the back of the head doesn't look like a shot to stop.

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Do you know how much BS is taught in handgun classes???

    Do not take anyone else's word for what the law says. Read it for yourself. So I ask again, can you cite a law that says a shot to kill is illegal for self-defense?

    If a shot to the back of the head is not self-defense, it is not because it is a kill shot, it is because the legal system found that there was no longer a threat, that the BG was moving away with his back to the person claiming self-defense.

    It is possible for a shot to the back of the head to be a self-defense shot. In most States the question is going to be whether the shooter reasonably believed that he was in grave danger and whether the shot taken in response to that danger, not whether the shot was a kill shot.

    Again, don't take my word for it. Read your State's law on self defense. Stop learning the law from mythology perpetuated by CCW instructors and LEOs. They are usually spouting what they have heard and haven't bothered to read the law for themselves.

  17. #17
    Regular Member Adam A Farley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Hinckley Utah
    Posts
    20

    My take

    Though I like to just get this ***** (if legit robbery via weapon ) off the streets .

    Reckon I would draw my gun and phone, snap a shot or two using the gun for intimidation factor and say ok RUN .

    Let the cops chase his ass down as he's ******* his pants lol.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Corryton
    Posts
    85
    The perp ran toward the clerk after the clerk had already fired a shot at him and missed, clearly he wouldn't have run away until one of the two of them was dead.

  19. #19
    Regular Member Adam A Farley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Hinckley Utah
    Posts
    20

    Tough call

    I was told by our sheriff that any shooting by a gun carrier is help by the same guidelines as a cops would be.

    Thus a chance of loosing your weapon pending investigation .

    Any one of us would want to avoid shooting some one as much as posible .

    Need to look into non leathel rubber rounds, I'm told they are highly accepted as justified as clean shoots to get the attacker to back down.

    Even if a round was to the head, in Utah I'm told they couldn't even sue you if it caused brain damage.

    No clue how much of that is fully true, we are very small populace here . But state DA gets involved and heads roll.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Big D
    Posts
    1,059

    Clerk shoots robber armed with knife, may face charges (Security Video)

    If you need the gun, use the gun. If you don't need it, don't use it, don't draw it, and don't play with it.

    And don't bother carrying if you haven't wrapped your mind around having to use it, you are only endangering yourself and others. Carrying a gun means you are willing to kill when it comes to it. Either that, or to get beat with it, shot and then contribute to the crime problem as it is taken from you.

  21. #21
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Z1P2 View Post
    I wasn't able to get the video to load yet, so this might just be me talking out of complete ignorance, but the fact that he shot him in the head leads me to believe that he will have legal trouble over this because even in a self defense situation you're not allowed to shoot with the intent to kill, only with the intent to stop the attack. There's a lot of subjectiveness to that though since only the clerk knows for sure what his intent was when he pulled the trigger, but if the prosecutor thinks there is enough evidence that he shot with the intent to kill then he may well face charges. I think he will ultimately beat any criminal charges brought against him though.
    This seems pretty silly to me. I mean his first shot missed so was that a shot to kill or stop the attack?

    Maybe he was aiming at his left knee and hit his head... Pretty tough on a guy who thought he was about to get stabbed or slashed.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

  22. #22
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by Z1P2 View Post
    I wasn't able to get the video to load yet, so this might just be me talking out of complete ignorance, but the fact that he shot him in the head leads me to believe that he will have legal trouble over this because even in a self defense situation you're not allowed to shoot with the intent to kill, only with the intent to stop the attack. There's a lot of subjectiveness to that though since only the clerk knows for sure what his intent was when he pulled the trigger, but if the prosecutor thinks there is enough evidence that he shot with the intent to kill then he may well face charges. I think he will ultimately beat any criminal charges brought against him though.
    you could not be any further from the truth. the wording of the law varies from state to state. but here in CT the law states that lethal force is justifiable when the attacker shows obvious signs of intent to cause great bodily harm or death, or sexual assault, and when the victim is unable to SAFELY AND CONFIDENTLY escape this danger. meaning a man (or woman) rushing me with a knife or a baseball bat makes me perfectly justified in shooting to kill, even on the first shot. it also means that if my girlfriend were about to be raped, she can shoot to kill the potential raper.

    pretty much the only time you can NOT shoot to kill, is the same time which you can not shoot at all; if the attacker has begun to retreat.
    Last edited by motoxmann; 01-27-2013 at 02:26 AM.

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Corryton
    Posts
    85
    but here in CT the law states that lethal force is justifiable when the attacker shows obvious signs of intent to cause great bodily harm or death, or sexual assault, and when the victim is unable to SAFELY AND CONFIDENTLY escape this danger.
    You should understand that there is a difference between using lethal force to stop an attack, and using lethal force with the intent to kill. If you think I am wrong, please feel free to consult a lawyer.

    Also keep in mind that criminal charges are only 1/2 of the legal nightmare following the use of a firearm. Even if criminal charges are not filed, the victim's family can still sue and civil cases do not need to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt, there is much more latitude there that could cost you big time.
    Last edited by Z1P2; 01-27-2013 at 02:32 AM.

  24. #24
    Regular Member motoxmann's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Middletown, CT
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by Z1P2 View Post
    You should understand that there is a difference between using lethal force to stop an attack, and using lethal force with the intent to kill. If you think I am wrong, please feel free to consult a lawyer.

    Also keep in mind that criminal charges are only 1/2 of the legal nightmare following the use of a firearm. Even if criminal charges are not filed, the victim's family can still sue and civil cases do not need to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt, there is much more latitude there that could cost you big time.
    again, quite far off from the truth. using lethal force by definition is intent to kill. lethal = deadly. there's no such thing as using lethal force ONLY to stop the attack, that would be using force to stop the attack. notice the lack of the word lethal. feel free to consult a lawyer on this.

    as for your comment on civil cases, that also is false. in many states, law states that to be found guilty, the "shooter" needs to be proven to have NOT been acting in necessary self defense. I believe the near-exact wording is: "if the 'victim' was acting in self defense, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise, he/she cannot be found guilty of a crime, and can not be held liable"
    Last edited by motoxmann; 01-27-2013 at 03:03 AM.

  25. #25
    Regular Member twoskinsonemanns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    WV
    Posts
    2,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Z1P2 View Post
    You should understand that there is a difference between using lethal force to stop an attack, and using lethal force with the intent to kill. If you think I am wrong, please feel free to consult a lawyer.
    Even if you were right, which you are not, (come on. LETHAL force vs LETHAL force with intent to kill?) how could you possibly say the POI of the shot proves it? Plenty of people have died from gunshots to chest, neck, leg etc.
    "I support the ban on assault weapons" - Donald Trump

    We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission - Ayn Rand

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •