Analysis of use of deadly force in Missouri robbery attempt

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/missouri-liquor-store-robber-almost-wins-darwin-award/

Good analysis of use of deadly force laws in Missouri liquor stor robbery incident

Posted by Andrew Branca Sunday, September 8, 2013 at 4:15pm 501
69
This past Sunday, September 1, saw the release of a remarkable bit of security footage from a Marionville, MO liquor store.

In it, store clerk (and military veteran) Jon Alexander is behind the counter when he is approached by a would-be robber ....

Would Alexander Have Been Justified in Shooting?
In this particular case, however, it’s worth asking, as an analytical exercise, whether Alexander would have been lawfully justified in using deadly force against the robber. Or, to put it another way, does there exist any legal basis on which one could argue that Alexander would not have been justified in using deadly force in self-defense?

The AOJ Triad

Objective Perception of Imminent Danger Established

But What About the Subjective Perception of Imminent Danger?

It’s the Perception of Imminent, Not Fully Realized, Threat That Counts

Click to expand...

I can almost hear OCDO member User ticking off these points. It's useful to have another attorney covering the ground - and especially one who is a RKBA and self defense advocate.

stay safe.

I am probably not as well trained as Alexander. I would have reasonably and prudently believed myself to be in mortal danger whether or not I saw the muzzle.

If I pulled my firearm in that situation, I would have done so intending to shoot. At this point in time, I cannot think of any eventuality that would have caused me to change my mind in the split-second between the firearm having left my holster and it being pointed point-blank at the robber.

I agree with Eye, the moment he pulled the weapon I would have considered myself in danger and would not have thought twice about shooting. He comes in with the intent to rob, pulling the gun shows me he has the ability and willingness to cross the line between threat and action, at least that is how it looks to me.

As for the clerk, I remember watching it on the news and thinking that he showed a lot of control.

I also must agree with eye, i do applaud the clerk for his restraint but in retrospect how would it make one feel if the bg just went to another store and ended up killing some innocent person. if you feel you absolutely must pull it, use it.

KRM59 said:

I also must agree with eye, i do applaud the clerk for his restraint but in retrospect how would it make one feel if the bg just went to another store and ended up killing some innocent person. if you feel you absolutely must pull it, use it.

Click to expand...

Or, what if the bad guy did the same thing back--sweeping aside the defender's gun while bringing up his own again? Or, what if the defender had just stepped aside--a quick foot-shuffle to his right, while bringing up the gun and opening fire?

I'm gonna assume the defender had the perceptions and calmness to recognize the bad guy wasn't serious about shooting him, but in no way would I second-guess him if he had just shot the bad guy.

The only reason we know the bad guy wasn't serious about using his gun on the clerk is because we have the video that shows what happened. If the defender had simply shot the robber, we'd have no way to know. From another angle, the only reason the lawyer in the OP has an opportunity to analyze this incident is because of the way it turned out, and on video. If the defender had simply shot the robber once clear of the holster, there would be no discussion because the shooting would have been obviously justified. There would be no opportunity to second-guess the defender.

I suspect that the mere fact the perp pulled his weapon out would prevent any charges against the clerk.
Even if the perp had turned around.

There was a case recently of the helmet wearing customer who attempted to walk behind the counter.
No charges.