One Person Dead in Shooting Near Walmart - Man charged with Murder for Self Defense?

[DocWalker]

I have jury duty the next two months in my county, I would vote not guilty. The reason an (I could care less what the law said) is that if you die while commiting a felony then that is fair. I don't care what they say about it, I'm tired of criminals getting more rights and protection than the honest citizen. I also don't care if it is when he puts the knife to my throat or when he turns to leave, if he will do it to me he will do it to another person. If you threaten me and try to leave with my wallet with all my information you will not get far. I will take my chances with a jury in my town/state. I know I will get ripped for my stance but I refuse to be a victim, I rufuse to let criminals be in charge.

 

[DocWalker]

I've been doing some IDPA shooting at the local range. For those not familiar with IDPA targets, there is a "zero" range in the torso, with the head is also considered a "zero".

In two cases I missed the torso "Zero", unintentionally hitting the head instead. Still counted as a "Zero" for scoring purposes, but the point is that in the "heat" of the moment a head shot can occur, especially at close ranges.

I suppose this fallacy of "head shot shows deliberation" is similar to using JHP in your Handgun, showing deliberate purpose for killing vs simply eliminating the threat...Which of course is total crap....

That is funny since the military and LEO are trained to do a three shot burst of two to the chest and one to the head...repeat. I have to shot every year to qualify and it is two to the chest and one to the head...over and over to get you conditioned. I found myself doing it at the range also when just shooting for fun.

 

[stainless1911]

There is no such limit to only defending yourself.

 

[scot623]

be a good witness, follow him into the store(some will say dont-911 dispatch may say dont) but he has a knife-what if he goes after others, you are not leagally obligated to help-morally thats not for me to say, everybody has their own ideas/demons to deal with.

I'm not legally obligated, but I am legally authorized to protect other victims...as Dan pointed out. I'm not a cop, but I wouldn't stand by on the phone with 911, describing a slaughter in progress with my firearm holstered on my hip.

 

[DocWalker]

I guess I will also let you know why I feel this way.

In 1994 there was an incident I was involved with were a gunman walked into a doctors office and the first person he saw was the patient. He pointed the gun at the patient but didn't shoot. He then pointed the gun at the doctor and shot him, he then turned and went to the next office and shot the doctor inside that office killing them both. He ended up killing multiple people and injuring of 20 before the cops killed him due to the response time. If the first person would have been armed he/she might have had a chance to prevent further killing of innocent life. This included a pregnant lady, and an 8 year old. I'm not saying it would have been different in this case but I lost a couple of close friends that day. Say what you want but the argument to protect the criminal from harm so he/she can commit more falls on deaf ears. I have seen to much I guess to have a bleeding heart for felons that would do harm to others.

 

[WalkingWolf]

That is funny since the military and LEO are trained to do a three shot burst of two to the chest and one to the head...repeat. I have to shot every year to qualify and it is two to the chest and one to the head...over and over to get you conditioned. I found myself doing it at the range also when just shooting for fun.

I guess things change with time, we were trained to aim for the torso and do a double tap, and then move to the next target. Special units train for head shot, but for the most part a missed head shot at a higher target has more opportunity to strike an unintended target. Unless it was a hostage situation I would not aim for the head. But then we qualified monthly, night qualified once a year which use of sights was pretty much impossible. And we shot multiple targets in both.

Course with 9mm as opposed to 45 or 357, yea I can see where head shots and more shots might be needed.

Just sayin'

 

[WalkingWolf]

I guess I will also let you know why I feel this way.

In 1994 there was an incident I was involved with were a gunman walked into a doctors office and the first person he saw was the patient. He pointed the gun at the patient but didn't shoot. He then pointed the gun at the doctor and shot him, he then turned and went to the next office and shot the doctor inside that office killing them both. He ended up killing multiple people and injuring of 20 before the cops killed him due to the response time. If the first person would have been armed he/she might have had a chance to prevent further killing of innocent life. This included a pregnant lady, and an 8 year old. I'm not saying it would have been different in this case but I lost a couple of close friends that day. Say what you want but the argument to protect the criminal from harm so he/she can commit more falls on deaf ears. I have seen to much I guess to have a bleeding heart for felons that would do harm to others.

Doc I agree, but the truth is that is not the way it works. We had a similar incident in Carthage a couple years back. It is unfortunate that people do not realize that no matter how many police they cannot be everywhere. It is time we take responsibility for our own safety, and demand that government recognize our rights and get out of our way.

 

[Bronson]

A crazed man with a knife just stuck it to my throat and robbed me. He is now running INTO a large store(where there are LOTS of people). Should I just let him go in there and possibly start hacking people up? Call the cops and hope they show up in time?

The imminent threat was over. He may have been running away or to another victim but you can't know that until he actually threatens another person. Imminent threat is the key here. Until it is clear that he is going to attack or is attacking another person there is NO imminent threat.

It sounds like you're looking for a justification for shooting someone in the back of the head in retribution for him attacking you. Has Stainless1911 hacked your account?

Bronson

 

[PDinDetroit]

I'm not legally obligated, but I am legally authorized to protect other victims...as Dan pointed out. I'm not a cop, but I wouldn't stand by on the phone with 911, describing a slaughter in progress with my firearm holstered on my hip.

And you would be right in doing so, if he was actually threatening another's life with that weapon. With the information as it stands, there is no evidence others were directly threatened by this person (was not robbing someone else, no knife at their throat).

If it was not a robbery and the perp just attempted to attack me and then ran towards others, then I *might* have reason to believe he would do the same to others and *might* be able to justify shooting.

A civilian shooting a perp running away is going to get charged most of the time...

 

[scot623]

The imminent threat was over. He may have been running away or to another victim but you can't know that until he actually threatens another person. Imminent threat is the key here. Until it is clear that he is going to attack or is attacking another person there is NO imminent threat.

It sounds like you're looking for a justification for shooting someone in the back of the head in retribution for him attacking you. Has Stainless1911 hacked your account?

Bronson

I am not looking for justification for shooting anyone, that I can guarantee you. Just throwing out food for thought. These situations are very thought provoking and a good point counter point can't hurt.

 

[PDinDetroit]

I am not looking for justification for shooting anyone, that I can guarantee you. Just throwing out food for thought. These situations are very thought provoking and a good point counter point can't hurt.

Besides, scot623 has a different linguistic posting pattern than Stainless does... :uhoh:

 

[Felid`Maximus]

On order to claim the excusable homicide defense you have to start out by pleading guilty to the murder charge and then convince the jury you qualify for the exemption. I'm sure attorneys out there (User?) will fill in all the specifications I'm glossing over.

I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't plead guilty to the murder charge. Murder is by definition an unlawful killing. After a guilty plea, sentencing begins. What you'd do is you'd plead not guilty, but the question of whether you were the one who committed the homicide will not be a fact of debate, instead, you would have to prove that the homicide did not amount to murder because it was justifiable homicide.

 

[xmanhockey7]

Looks like the robber shouldn't have messed with Jesus!

 

[DrTodd]

So I guess it comes down to whether the "robber" was a reasonable distance away when shot or not. My guess, and it is only a guess: since Mr Canul used a handgun against Mr Abbott... which implies a rather short range...that this range that would most likely still allow Mr Abbott to be an immediate threat to Mr Canul's life. In fact, I would think that a knife within general pistol distances would actually be more dangerous than the pistol itself, especially since the knife is unsheathed. What I find particularly troubling is that Mr Canul is being held without bond until the grand jury convenes in September.

 

[DocWalker]

Looks like the robber shouldn't have messed with Jesus!

Now that is funny, I don't care who you are that is funny.

Not making fun of the situation; but that was funny.

 

[DocWalker]

So I guess it comes down to whether the "robber" was a reasonable distance away when shot or not. My guess, and it is only a guess: since Mr Canul used a handgun against Mr Abbott... which implies a rather short range...that this range that would most likely still allow Mr Abbott to be an immediate threat to Mr Canul's life. In fact, I would think that a knife within general pistol distances would actually be more dangerous than the pistol itself, especially since the knife is unsheathed. What I find particularly troubling is that Mr Canul is being held without bond until the grand jury convenes in September.

+1 Maybe the criminal (felon, robber, the man that held a knife and threatened him) was related to police chief or something.

 

[DanM]

The imminent threat was over. He may have been running away or to another victim but you can't know that until he actually threatens another person. Imminent threat is the key here. Until it is clear that he is going to attack or is attacking another person there is NO imminent threat.

Incorrect. The standard in WV for the point at which you are justified in using lethal force is "reasonable belief" of imminent danger. Not imminent danger "is clear". Not imminent danger "is happening" (which you imply with ". . . or is attacking . . .").

By the laws of the area relevant to this discussion, you do not have to wait until imminent danger "is clear" or "is happening". You only have to wait until you reasonably believe danger is imminent.

These are quite different standards which can spell drastically different outcomes in a trial. You need to come correct.

 

[Bronson]

A crazed man with a knife just stuck it to my throat and robbed me. He is now running INTO a large store(where there are LOTS of people). Should I just let him go in there and possibly start hacking people up? Call the cops and hope they show up in time?

By the laws of the area relevant to this discussion

scot623 lives in MI, I was responding to him.

Besides that I still say "imminent" danger means that it is clear that it is going to happen not that it might happen. An armed man running toward a crowd falls in the might category so there is no imminent threat to anybody.

By your reasoning a person could be shot for OCing because they were walking toward a crowd and somebody had a "belief" that the OCer was there for nefarious purposes.

Bronson

 

[PDinDetroit]

Incorrect. The standard in WV for the point at which you are justified in using lethal force is "reasonable belief" of imminent danger. Not imminent danger "is clear". Not imminent danger "is happening" (which you imply with ". . . or is attacking . . .").

By the laws of the area relevant to this discussion, you do not have to wait until imminent danger "is clear" or "is happening". You only have to wait until you reasonably believe danger is imminent.

These are quite different standards which can spell drastically different outcomes in a trial. You need to come correct.

Do you really believe that it is a "reasonable belief" of imminent danger when a person is running AWAY FROM YOU?

 

[skidmark]

I'm pretty sure that you wouldn't plead guilty to the murder charge. Murder is by definition an unlawful killing. After a guilty plea, sentencing begins. What you'd do is you'd plead not guilty, but the question of whether you were the one who committed the homicide will not be a fact of debate, instead, you would have to prove that the homicide did not amount to murder because it was justifiable homicide.

All kiling is unlawful. Some killings, athough unlawful, can be excused or justified.

"Guilty, but excusable." If you plead Not Guilty then the jury will look to see if you meant to kill the guy or not, and most likely find you did in fact mean to kill him. No way to claim it was excusable/justified if you say you didn't do it. They'll find you guilty of some version of homicide, sure as you're born. Defense of excusability precluded because you denied you killed him at all.

I agree it sounds counterintuitive, but that's the way it works.

stay safe.