Did this clerk have the right to shoot?

neuroblades · Nov 7, 2011

Badger Johnson said:
OMG, the outcry of 'He was a sweet guy'. Yeah, I'm a sweet guy - I can tell because I ain't threatening to kill someone with a knife over cigs. He's a felon and a thief and was willing to take a life for cigarettes and ho-hos.

I agree with you on this one Badger! If anyone's willing to rob, steal or kill anyone else with a weapon; they have foregone their Right to live! As for this specific case, there are really too many unknown's at this point to safely say one way or other.

langzaiguy · Nov 7, 2011

Sure, it's the world is a better place without him. However, I doubt anyone here can tell me with confidence that a man with a knife that turns tail and runs is still a threat. Would he end up committing the same crime and threatening someone else down the line? Probably. But you can't kill someone because you think he'll probably do something in the future. In KY, if you or someone else is in imminent mortal danger or sexual assault you may use deadly force. Doesn't look good for the clerk.

09jisaac · Nov 8, 2011

langzaiguy said:
Sure, it's the world is a better place without him. However, I doubt anyone here can tell me with confidence that a man with a knife that turns tail and runs is still a threat. Would he end up committing the same crime and threatening someone else down the line? Probably. But you can't kill someone because you think he'll probably do something in the future. In KY, if you or someone else is in imminent mortal danger or sexual assault you may use deadly force. Doesn't look good for the clerk.

I will argue against that too. http://wvgazette.com/News/201109192975. I know its not in Kentucky but it is right across the river. People are getting tired of having what they have worked hard for taken away from them. They can't stand that the laws protect the crooks and the theives over them. People getting only 3 years for murder, probation for hard drugs. If I was caught kicking my dog I would serve more than what most POS would serve in their life.

KYGlockster · Nov 8, 2011

Krs ch.503.050

A victim has a right to use deadly physical force in protection of self or anOther when, they fear death, serious physical injury, forced intercourse, Kidnapping, FELONY WITH USE OF FORCE. This seems justified under Ky deadly force law. If they are found to have acted within the law they are safe from criminal and civil suits. Krs 503.055 and 503.080 cOuld also apply. Ky allows you to protect yourself in more cases than just fear of death or rape and the fact that a felony was committed, and Ky has no requirement to flee if possible, I say this will certainly be justified under law.

skidmark · Nov 8, 2011

KYGlockster said:
Krs ch.503.050

A victim has a right to use deadly physical force in protection of self or anOther when, they fear death, serious physical injury, forced intercourse, Kidnapping, FELONY WITH USE OF FORCE. This seems justified under Ky deadly force law. If they are found to have acted within the law they are safe from criminal and civil suits. Krs 503.055 and 503.080 cOuld also apply. Ky allows you to protect yourself in more cases than just fear of death or rape and the fact that a felony was committed, and Ky has no requirement to flee if possible, I say this will certainly be justified under law.

Sorry, but the Felony With Use of Force was over before the clerk shot. These are examples of imminent danger.

Folks need to understand that the law looks at a crime as having a clear beginning time and a clear ending time. This crime ended when the BG exited the store. There is no question that a crime was committed and the perpetrator needs/ought to be found, tried and if convicted be punished for his misdeed(s). But there are a lot of folks who seem more than happy to skip all that "justice" and "due process" stuff - most likely only until it comes their turn to be accused of a criminal act.

I probably would be up front leading the cheering if the clerk had gunned the perp down when the guy was standing in front of the counter waving his knife around. But once the perp left the store the clerk changed from being the victm to being the aggressor/instigator of a new crime. As such he deserves, in the book a lot of you seem to be reading from, to be shot down like a dog himself.

stay safe.

09jisaac · Nov 8, 2011

No one said that this was strictly by the law. The victims should have just as much right for justice as the perp has for due process. It all just depends what happens 1st. If the cops would have picked him up the courts would have only gave him a year or so, maybe probation. Is that justice? Not exactly. Was the shooting? Not exactly. It was on the other end of the spectrum, being too harsh. But anymore it seems like that is all we have.

It don't matter if you have someone on camera, with tracks in the snow leading from the crime scene to the perps house (happened right across the road from me) nothing is being done anymore.

KYGlockster · Nov 8, 2011

I must agree100%. Cops aren't arresting unless it's over drugs and prosecutors are not prosecuting. This is a little off subject but not to long ago in my county a woman, with previous D.U.I convictions, and other drug related problems swerved into oncoming lane and killed an innocent young woman, who died saying her last words in her husbands arms, and even admitted to speeding and reaching for a cell phone. By her own admissions she should have been charged with reckless driving, possibly manslaughter, negligent homicide?!? There was no field sobriety conducted, no toxicology report done at all, much less within the two hours required by law. But if you have a bag of weed they will throw you in cuffs right now! Our justice system is no longer serving justice, and it's gonna have to be dealt up like it was for a hundred years after the founding of our great country. The fact that this man threatened a life, and who knows what else he said to the clerk, and if he done this to her, what about next time? Maybe next time he wouldnt have been so easy on his victim.!! IMO it was completely justified, and I bet the prosecutors will agree, guess we will just have to wait and see. I believe if anyone threatens someone's life with deadly force illegally, and there is proof or they are found guilty, they should be put in prison for the rest of their life no questions asked. Better than having them out on the street in 5 years searching for their victim, or other people to Rob and possibly kill!

09jisaac · Nov 8, 2011

KYGlockster said:
I must agree100%. Cops aren't arresting unless it's over drugs and prosecutors are not prosecuting. This is a little off subject but not to long ago in my county a woman, with previous D.U.I convictions, and other drug related problems swerved into oncoming lane and killed an innocent young woman, who died saying her last words in her husbands arms, and even admitted to speeding and reaching for a cell phone. By her own admissions she should have been charged with reckless driving, possibly manslaughter, negligent homicide?!? There was no field sobriety conducted, no toxicology report done at all, much less within the two hours required by law. But if you have a bag of weed they will throw you in cuffs right now! Our justice system is no longer serving justice, and it's gonna have to be dealt up like it was for a hundred years after the founding of our great country. The fact that this man threatened a life, and who knows what else he said to the clerk, and if he done this to her, what about next time? Maybe next time he wouldnt have been so easy on his victim.!! IMO it was completely justified, and I bet the prosecutors will agree, guess we will just have to wait and see. I believe if anyone threatens someone's life with deadly force illegally, and there is proof or they are found guilty, they should be put in prison for the rest of their life no questions asked. Better than having them out on the street in 5 years searching for their victim, or other people to Rob and possibly kill!

That wreck ^^^, something similar happened right outside my house in 2007. The guy was in court the week before on drug charges and lost his license. He swerved into on coming traffic, a car avoided the head on collision by turning into a store parking lot, my cousin and her best friend who were in the next car weren't so lucky. They were dead before I ever got there. My cousin's dad and brother helped pull her lifeless body out of that wreck. While he just sat in his totaled car wondering what happened.

No one took his blood at our hospital (some say they did but the report went missing) but at the hospital he was transported to he had uppers and downers in his system. Without the blood test at the 1st hospital (the one where his sister works) the DA said that he didn't have enough to prosecute.

Two girls, 17 at the time, lost their life from a guy who might have been high or might not have been, but he didn't even have to face a grand jury. Is this justice?

So I can see that we have to start doing things if they are too be done. Because our system is too flawed to do it itself.

langzaiguy · Nov 8, 2011

Does the guy DESERVE to get shot? That is debatable, but irrelevant. Justice for the victim is irrelevant to our discussion as well. The question at hand is, at the very moment the clerk fired on the BG, was the clerk's life in imminent danger? Was he about to be kidnapped? Was he about to be raped? I would argue no. This is what the jury will have to figure out, not all these extraneous details. As much as we want to identify with the clerk (myself included), you have to look at KY law (not what's across the river) and the facts of the case.

09jisaac · Nov 8, 2011

langzaiguy said:
Does the guy DESERVE to get shot? That is debatable, but irrelevant. Justice for the victim is irrelevant to our discussion as well. The question at hand is, at the very moment the clerk fired on the BG, was the clerk's life in imminent danger? Was he about to be kidnapped? Was he about to be raped? I would argue no. This is what the jury will have to figure out, not all these extraneous details. As much as we want to identify with the clerk (myself included), you have to look at KY law (not what's across the river) and the facts of the case.

Except you also have to convince the jury that what he did was wrong, not just against the law. Jury notification is when the jury thinks the laws are unjust, inadequate, "or exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic or passion, the jury has the right to acquit, and the courts must abide that decision."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury

You don't have to march blindly to the laws. Look at what is right (that is mostly a personal decision) over what is within the law. Black had to sit at the back of the bus, was that right? Or how about that they couldn't be served at white only establishments, was that right? No, so they did what was right over what the law states.

langzaiguy · Nov 8, 2011

It's called "Jury Nullification" and it's pretty rare. What a jury does, or at least is supposed to do, is to analyze the situation and if there is enough proof that a defendant broke the LAW. I agree, morality and right & wrong are above the law and there are some laws that are unjust. However, aside from the rare jury nullification, it is irrelevant. Judge's and juries are almost solely concerned with the LAW.

Whether or not the clerk was acting lawfully and rightfully are two separate debates. On the latter, I also believe it immoral to shoot a fleeing man in the back--especially over money rather than life.

09jisaac · Nov 8, 2011

langzaiguy said:
It's called "Jury Nullification" and it's pretty rare. What a jury does, or at least is supposed to do, is to analyze the situation and if there is enough proof that a defendant broke the LAW. I agree, morality and right & wrong are above the law and there are some laws that are unjust. However, aside from the rare jury nullification, it is irrelevant. Judge's and juries are almost solely concerned with the LAW.

Whether or not the clerk was acting lawfully and rightfully are two separate debates. On the latter, I also believe it immoral to shoot a fleeing man in the back--especially over money rather than life.

Sorry with the auto correct, I just chose something without reading it......

But what about what he took that you can't put a price tag on? He won't ever live the same life he lived before that night. He lost something more than that money that didn't even belong to him.

mem1977 · Nov 8, 2011

skidmark said:
Sorry, but the Felony With Use of Force was over before the clerk shot. These are examples of imminent danger.

Folks need to understand that the law looks at a crime as having a clear beginning time and a clear ending time. This crime ended when the BG exited the store. There is no question that a crime was committed and the perpetrator needs/ought to be found, tried and if convicted be punished for his misdeed(s). But there are a lot of folks who seem more than happy to skip all that "justice" and "due process" stuff - most likely only until it comes their turn to be accused of a criminal act.

I probably would be up front leading the cheering if the clerk had gunned the perp down when the guy was standing in front of the counter waving his knife around. But once the perp left the store the clerk changed from being the victm to being the aggressor/instigator of a new crime. As such he deserves, in the book a lot of you seem to be reading from, to be shot down like a dog himself.

stay safe.

I have to agree with this. When the guy was in the store and had the clerk at knife point. The clerk should have shot the guy then and there inside the store. Then it would have been justified. When the guy left the store, the clerk should have let him go. When the clerk gave chase and fired his gun. Not only was it not justified, he then became the aggressor. He could have also while firing that gun hit an innocent bystander. It is my personal opinion that the clerk was not justified in shooting the robber.

As for the guy with the knife. People say he was a nice guy. If that were true then why did he try and commit robbery with a knife. If he needed money, he should have got a job or did some odd jobs to make the money. I know the economy is rough, but there are still a lot of businesses looking for help. Therefore it is my opinion that the gentleman was not a nice person.

flb_78 · Nov 9, 2011

langzaiguy said:
I also believe it immoral to shoot a fleeing man in the back--especially over money rather than life.

I find it immoral to threaten another human being's life over cigarettes and money and once that line has been crossed, any and all punishment is deserved.

The deceased wasn't fleeing, he was trying to escape with property that he stole under the threat of deadly force.

Did this clerk have the right to shoot?

neuroblades

Regular Member

langzaiguy

Regular Member

09jisaac

Regular Member

KYGlockster

Activist Member

skidmark

Campaign Veteran

09jisaac

Regular Member

KYGlockster

Activist Member

09jisaac

Regular Member

langzaiguy

Regular Member

09jisaac

Regular Member

langzaiguy

Regular Member

09jisaac

Regular Member

mem1977

Regular Member

flb_78

Regular Member