http://www.azcentral.com/community/...le-k-killing-beer-robbery-justified-abrk.html
Your thoughts on justification. Sounds like alot of grey area...
Your thoughts on justification. Sounds like alot of grey area...
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Circle K Shooting in Gilbert
- Thread starter Craig_M
- Start date
Bad shoot. Threat had broken off once perp ran off. Shooter went to car to obtain gun and then went after perp where struggle ensued. Perp could have wrestled free gun and defended himself. Then claim self defense.
Shooter is lucky - in most states he would be charged with murder.
Shooter is lucky - in most states he would be charged with murder.
Thats what i was thinking, although we dont know the factors that the PD used to say it was justified, my though was once you retreat from a situation the threat is over and if you reinsert yourself back in then you take your chances. Im trying to get more from the reporter. Perhaps he decided to keep tabs on the perp until the cops got there and knowing he had been hit once, doing that empty handed was a bad idea. He sure is lucky if it sticks through the county attorney review.
GF
Regular Member
Took the words right out of my mouth.
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
I not sure the story gives us enough info to know for sure it was a bad shoot.
I can see someone going after a stranger to recover robbed property--a guy who had just slugged him with a wrench--being inclined to bring along his gun.
The story says the deceased tried to use the wrench on the citizen again during the second encounter (if we can call it that). That scenario might equate with justified lethal force depending on what exactly occurred.
I personally wouldn't chase someone just to recover some beer if that person showed an inclination to use a bludgeon. The beer just isn't worth it. BUT! I would definitely be inclined to follow the guy to identify or keep an eye on him until the cops arrive in response to my armed robbery report, in which case I would definitely have my gun.
This is not like a bar fight that escalated into lethal force, or a road-rage brandish-er that decides to leave once the victim turns out to be armed. In this case, the felony was accomplished.
I am thinking the distinction in the present case is maybe whether the robbery victim followed to get revenge, or, followed to recover his property or identify the criminal with the criminal attacking him again.
I can see someone going after a stranger to recover robbed property--a guy who had just slugged him with a wrench--being inclined to bring along his gun.
The story says the deceased tried to use the wrench on the citizen again during the second encounter (if we can call it that). That scenario might equate with justified lethal force depending on what exactly occurred.
I personally wouldn't chase someone just to recover some beer if that person showed an inclination to use a bludgeon. The beer just isn't worth it. BUT! I would definitely be inclined to follow the guy to identify or keep an eye on him until the cops arrive in response to my armed robbery report, in which case I would definitely have my gun.
This is not like a bar fight that escalated into lethal force, or a road-rage brandish-er that decides to leave once the victim turns out to be armed. In this case, the felony was accomplished.
I am thinking the distinction in the present case is maybe whether the robbery victim followed to get revenge, or, followed to recover his property or identify the criminal with the criminal attacking him again.
After reading the comments on the article i guess i can see the justification. My thought was exactly as you said, me personally i probably would not have pursued him even though i had a legal right to do so. I would have kept an eye on him so the cops could locate him when they arrived at a safe distance. Yes alot of things we dont know yet but i will continue to pester the reporter to follow up as this is an important story to get out. If the shooter had not been arrested and deemed justified at the time of the shooting the story would have never made it to the paper as the republic generally only wants to print the negative side of gun stories. I think they got backed in the corner on this since an arrest was made then the shooter was found to be justified.
Sonora Rebel
Regular Member
Bad shoot. The threat was fleeing. The shooter should have been carrying his piece to begin with. No reason not to in AZ. In that scenario... OK. But... 'go and get it...?" No.
mFonz77
Regular Member
I used to work for a privately held company of C-Stores in Missouri that eventually got bought out by Circle K. The policy before and after the switch was no personal firearms while on the clock. Not sure if that was a corporate thing or just that subset of stores or whatever. Just speculating here, FWIW. Maybe he left it in the car because of a similar policy.
Dahwg
Regular Member
Everyone is missing something here. We all try to boil down justification to the whole "if my life is threatened" scenario, and though I agree that would be the most ethical use of deadly force, in the state of Arizona there is additional justification to stop certain felonies in progress; aggravated assault is definitely one of them.
Additionally, we have rather broad citizen's arrest power in AZ. A felony is committed in your presence or upon you- Armed Robbery. The fact that this was simply beer is irrelevant from a legal point of view. You have the legal right to affect a citizen's arrest.
If I know the guy's armed and I choose to make the citizen's arrest, then I'd be a fool to go unarmed. I chase the perp attempt a citizen's arrest, now an aggravated assault is committed against me by the perp. I am justified in using deadly force at this point.
Additionally, we have rather broad citizen's arrest power in AZ. A felony is committed in your presence or upon you- Armed Robbery. The fact that this was simply beer is irrelevant from a legal point of view. You have the legal right to affect a citizen's arrest.
If I know the guy's armed and I choose to make the citizen's arrest, then I'd be a fool to go unarmed. I chase the perp attempt a citizen's arrest, now an aggravated assault is committed against me by the perp. I am justified in using deadly force at this point.
Last edited:
azcdlfred
Regular Member
The "if it isn't worth dying for" rule still applies.
Once you get invovled in these scenarios, even though legally justified, your life is over as you know it. You don't have the job protections cops have. Depsite being a good guy, law enforcement won't like you playing cop. You are open to civil suits. A citizen's arrest by you can result in you being prosecuted for kidnapping. Unless your life (or the life of someone you're willing to die for) is at risk, the better course would be to call 911 and be a good witness.
Fred
Dahwg
Regular Member
I agree with that 100%. I would not play hero over some beer. Ethically, it's not smart, nor is it smart to put your life in jeopardy. I'm just pointing out that if we're going to do a good shoot/bad shoot based on the legal issues, it is a good shoot. I agree that it was not a smart shoot at all.