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

twoskinsonemanns · Jan 27, 2013

Z1P2 said:
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.

motoxmann · Jan 27, 2013

Z1P2 said:
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.

Z1P2 · Jan 27, 2013

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.

motoxmann · Jan 27, 2013

Z1P2 said:
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"

twoskinsonemanns · Jan 27, 2013

Z1P2 said:
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.

Z1P2 · Jan 27, 2013

feel free to consult a lawyer on this.

I was told that by my legal shield lawyer, so I don't need to. If you don't believe me, that's fine, we may have to agree to disagree and hopefully it won't ever come back to bite you in the arse, but then again, don't we all hope that we never have to use lethal force in the first place?

eye95 · Jan 27, 2013

Z1P2 said:
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.

Au contraire, you are the one asserting that a shot to kill is illegal, passing along your CCW class wisdom. YOU should cite law to back up that assertion with black-letter and/or case law. (Hell, your instructor should have. But I am not surprised that he did not.)

We'll wait. *taps foot impatiently*

eye95 · Jan 27, 2013

motoxmann said:
...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...

Yes, in Alabama, the portion of the Code on self-defense specifically holds the shooter in a self-defense situation harmless from civil suits. If the other poster would like, I will be happy to look it up and cut-and-paste it here. You see, I am willing to back up my legal assertions.

motoxmann · Jan 27, 2013

the Castle Doctrine also comes to mind, a lot of states fully support that too.

OC for ME · Jan 28, 2013

Castle doctrine may not apply to a business that is not your residence. If the clerk is a employee, as seems to be the case, else the article would state owner, but then again maybe not.

motoxmann · Jan 28, 2013

OC for ME said:
Castle doctrine may not apply to a business that is not your residence. If the clerk is a employee, as seems to be the case, else the article would state owner, but then again maybe not.

yeah I'm aware of that. I was saying that in regards to the whole dispute occurring above that post regarding legally being able to shoot to kill lol. and I know the castle doctrine isn't put in place so you may kill anyone who comes on your property and refuses to leave, but it does play a small part in the legality of a person dying as a result of your shooting them in self defense.

Packer fan · Jan 31, 2013

davidmcbeth said:
Packer fan is correct on this one ... have a wheel of cheese

Oh Bret, oh Bret OH BRET !!!!

This made me laugh. Although the statement maybe obvious, apparently it wasn't that obvious to a few others.

And from the last statement you made it sounds like you are a Packer fan who was in love with Bret but I myself was never a fan of his and was happy he left, but this thread isn't about football and your love affair.

I know I maybe flagged for this as a personal attack but such is life.

Yaki · Apr 12, 2013

motoxmann said:
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

Criminals do run and shoot backwards. Cardinal rule, don't bring a knife to a gun fight.

ron73440 · Apr 13, 2013

Adam A Farley said:
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.

You can't be serious.

Non lethal's only cause pain and if the BG is high on something or really tough so it doesn't phase him then what?

If you shoot to the face at close range they can be lethal, but what is the point of non lethal then?

OT: Do they even make rubber bullets for pistols? I used to be a non lethal instructor and we used bean bags and rubber bullets for pump shotguns as well as rubber stinger grenades that were "cooler than ice cream."

Big Daddy XD · Apr 14, 2013

motoxmann said:
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

There has been 2 examples in WV that have proved this wrong. One a man was robbed (I think at knife point) in a parking lot after cashing his check. As the robber was fleeing the man shot him and killed him.

The other was basically the same. Shot in back as they were fleeing.

Both shooters got off with self defense.

I agree shooting someone in the back is murder not self defense in all but very few circumstances. However who knows how a grand jury is going to act....

eye95 · Apr 14, 2013

The devil is in the details. Were the victims defending themselves, causing the perp to turn to run during that defense, resulting in his being back-shot? If so, I'd vote for lawful self-defense.

IMO, once a LAC has shown that he used force in response to a threat, the burden of proof should shift back to the DA to show that the force was somehow unlawful. Even better, as I understand FL law, merely saying that it was self-defense shifts all burden back to the DA to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not. That is the way the law in all fifty-seven States should be.

Freedom1Man · Apr 15, 2013

Adam A Farley said:
I was told by our sheriff that any shooting by a gun carrier is held 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 possible .

Need to look into non-lethal 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.

Spelling correction mine.

COMMENTS REMOVED BY ADMINISTRATOR: LEO Bashing. See rules.

Big Daddy XD · Apr 16, 2013

eye95 said:
The devil is in the details. Were the victims defending themselves, causing the perp to turn to run during that defense, resulting in his being back-shot? If so, I'd vote for lawful self-defense.

IMO, once a LAC has shown that he used force in response to a threat, the burden of proof should shift back to the DA to show that the force was somehow unlawful. Even better, as I understand FL law, merely saying that it was self-defense shifts all burden back to the DA to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not. That is the way the law in all fifty-seven States should be.

I understand that however in my opinion (for whatever its worth...lol) if someone is running away from you holding a knife they are not much of a threat any longer. So shooting and killing them isn't self defense.....its revenge. It doesn't matter whether they are running because they got what they want and are fleeing or whether you've pulled your weapon and their getting out of dodge.

papa bear · Apr 16, 2013

EYE, the case in WV, it is what came to mind when i read this. the guy pulled his CCG and shot the robber as he was turning to leave. one shot in the side other in the back. i believe he was acquitted by a jury. but then that was in a small town and the DA didn't push it that hard. it would really be up to where it happens.

IMHO, though the 21 foot rule would apply. it would be very easy for the robber to turn within 21 ft and do serious harm.if i was on a jury i wouldn't care if the guy chased the robber out into the street, once he took to robbing someone he gave up all expectations of living

F350 · Apr 16, 2013

eye95 said:
The devil is in the details. Were the victims defending themselves, causing the perp to turn to run during that defense, resulting in his being back-shot? If so, I'd vote for lawful self-defense.

IMO, once a LAC has shown that he used force in response to a threat, the burden of proof should shift back to the DA to show that the force was somehow unlawful. Even better, as I understand FL law, merely saying that it was self-defense shifts all burden back to the DA to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not. That is the way the law in all fifty-seven States should be.

I see what you did there :lol::lol:

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

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member