RobertNashville

Really?  I don't know if it's a factor in this instance or not but do you really think DAs don't consider whether or not they can get a conviction in deciding whether to charge or not?   I don't know if you really believe that or if you are just pulling my leg.   Just for fun...   It is the "size of the court's caseload" and the "need to conserve prosecutorial resources" that most come into play when deciding if the DA can get a conviction...pursuing cases where there is little likelihood of a conviction is a wast of time and resources (at the taxpayer's expense) and any DA who does that very often will likely soon be out of a job (and should be). Again, I don't know if that impacted THIS DA's decision in THIS case but they absolutely do take ability to win their case into consideration.

  Maybe if the victim had fired instantly it could be argued self defense but If I remember the video correctly the thug disengaged (ran away) almost instantly so I think you would have a difficult time claiming self-defense.   And, presumably' you've just disarmed him making him less of a threat almost instantly.   Now, if the thug doesn't disengage or wants to reengage...that would be a different matter; whether he's armed or not.

  Yes, the current law could be modified but I know of no effective way for a business to "ban firearms" other than by signage that says so and the only way a sign can have any meaning is if there is a penalty for ignoring it that is sufficient to encourage people to obey it. That means, there would still have to be a law on the books and would be unconstitutional by your definition, correct?   If so, then it seems to me that any legislator/candidate who was in favor of continuing the law in any form wouldn't pass your test.

  I'm not assuming anything; I'm basing my opinion on what I've read in the stories on the incident. Of course we don't have all the facts; we never do.   The only assumption I am making is that this former manager and his former employer will be sued civilly and I can sleep okay with that.

And in earlier posts some were assuming that the DA didn't charge because he wouldn't be able to get a jury to convict, not because the manager's actions didn't justify charges. Unless the DA says otherwise, all we can actually know is that the DA isn't charging...beyond that is nothing but assumption.   True; but there is no reason to assume there are facts clearing the manager, either.

Yes, that's a good point...   "the private citizen has the right to arrest when a felony has been committed and he has reasonable cause to believe that the person arrested committed it. Reasonable grounds will justify the arrest, whether the facts turn out to be sufficient or not." (See Wilson v. State, 79 Tenn. 310 (1833).   I'm not sure, however, if that right supports trying to effect an arrest to the point of engaging the fleeing felon in a gun battle  and we don't know who fired first or for that matter, if the thug fired at all.   At the very least, it seems pretty stupid to me to pursue a thug you know is armed; seems much more the act of a cowboy trying to be tough than a concerned citizen trying to protect the public - if people are worried about the possible threat the thug represented how much more of a threat to innocent people is a gun fight that was unnecessary?

DAs charge or don't charge all the time; that has nothing to do with whether an armed citizen can pursue, engage and kill someone after the threat is over and still claim self-defense.

  There is nothing in the news stories that indicate that the thug was still a threat after he left the store.   An armed bad guy can pose a threat but being able to be a threat and being one are not interchangeable concepts; either are or they aren't a threat...if they are a threat than you have the protection of using deadly force and claiming self-defense; if they aren't and you employ deadly force you are the one in the wrong.   There is not duty to retreat before using deadly force, as long as you are acting lawfully and are in a place you have a right to be and if you have a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily (39-11-611). This is commonly referred to Tennessee's "stand your ground" law. However, nothing in the law allows you to purse someone. In fact, Notices to Decisions Vol 7 page 9 says that "If any less injury than death or great bodily harm is feared or indicated by the circumstances, the plea of self-defense will not be sustained, though the degree of homicide may be reduced." (Rippy v. State, 39 Tennessee, 217 (1858)   In other words, when the threat is over, it's OVER and you lose the protection of claiming self-defense.

I don't care how many ways you can think of...I can think of them too; it's still making assumptions and still worthless.

Sure...and there are plenty of people who need work but won't move to where they can find work because "my family has always lived here"...there will always be people like that.  However, that doesn't mean that many won't make the decision to leave. Actually, some say based on census reports, etc. that the migration is well underway and has been for a while now.

Again, you can assume anything you want..

I'm not adding anything.   All the stories I've read about the incident say that the thug left the store and was leaving the area. If that is what the thug was doing then the only way to make him out to still be presenting an active threat is by making assumptions.

Of course an HCP isn't sufficient to let you on a plane...it's more likely to identify you as someone who shouldn't be allowed on a plane since we all know that anyone who would want to go around armed is just a few brain cells shy of being a domestic terrorist.   If you also have prior military service and are white and over 40 you are probably on a no-fly list. ;)

Well...yeah...if we keep adding stuff to the story that could have happened it can make the story play out any way we want. Nothing I've read indicates that the guy was presenting an active threat after he left the store until the manager decided to pursue him outside at which point all we know is the the thug was shot and died from a gunshot wound in the back.   I believe this manager went out of his way to engage in a gun fight and while it looks like he'll get away without criminal charges I doubt he'll escape the civil consequences for his actions.

I've had a Marlin 30-30...I have a Henry Golden Boy 22LR; both Henry and Marlin make excellent rifles and I don't think you could go wrong with either one in any caliber.

I've said before and I say again, I have come to the conclusion that this country has already passed the tipping point and any talk about "undoing" what Obama (and the progressives/socialists before him) have done or "Americans waking up" doesn't have enough legs to stand on to be considered wishful thinking.   We can try to hang onto what's left but it will all be lost eventually.   The only hope I have or possible solution I see is the possibility of a natural "migration"...a migration of those who actually still love liberty and believe in the Constitution moving from the blue states they now live in to those states that will protect their rights...then, those states deciding to band together to resist the federal government.  I don't believe a violent civil war can win (I think everyone would lose) but I do think that a peaceful but determined resistance might at least provide a place where what America once was can still exist.

The guy was pretty lucky that worked out well for him...could have easily gone the other way.   AT the risk of overstating the obvious, not only does it show how quickly this can go down it's also a good reminder of how essential it is that we stay aware of our surroundings; it's a lot safer to avoid a conflict like this than have to escape from it once we are in it!

I doubt you are going to find many if any legislators or want-to-be legislators who will agree that a business should not be able to restrict arms inside of their physical business/building and have those signs carry the force of law.   Hell, half the people on this forum think that even "allowing" a firearm to be inside of a locked, privately owned vehicle while sitting in a public parking lot is too much of an infringement on a property owner's "rights" (even though the courts have said otherwise).   I'm not saying we shouldn't or can't test them but I think we need a more clear-cut example :)

It's sad to see what has happened to Chicago.  It was a great city with great things to see and experience...I lived there for a year many years ago and have gone back many times.   However, I wouldn't go there today even if I could do so legally armed....when I travel these days I avoid the entire state; even if I have to drive significant distances out of my way.

I don't have a problem with how it ended; I have a problem with the manager's actions. If the threat was over (I say "if" because I've seen nothing that specifically says it wasn't) then this manager is a murderer no matter how much people might like that this thug is dead.   The day we start prosecuting crime based on the how well we like or dislike the victim is the day we no longer have a civil society.

The only thing obvious is that the DA isn't charging him; anything else is speculation.   That law only applies if the shooting was found by a court to be justified...a DA simply choosing not to prosecute will not protect this guy from civil suits.   I guess it's a really good thing for this cowboy that the thug he shot wasn't a kid-thug-want-a-be who only wanted some skddles...of course, if some pics of the thug when he was 13 and looking sweet and innocent show up on the internet things could change.

Whether he was in fear for his life or not is irrelevant.  What is relevant is whether the fear is reasonable and I see nothing reasonable in being afraid of a thug who is in the process of running away.   If no jury would convict this guy for shooting another man in the back then shame on them.

  Since the DA is not obliged to give his reasons we'll never know but I'd bet real money that some of our attorney friends on the forum could recite cases where people who clearly defended themselves from a real threat and didn't shoot the fleeing thug in the back, were charged with murder and found guilty.   I've no love lost for the thug but shooting a man in the back after he is no longer a threat is a cowardly act and murder, even if no charges are filed. As I said earlier, we are supposed to stop the threat; not dispense our own brand of justice.

Humm...I guess some people are fine with shooting a fleeing man in the back...but I'm not one of them   If there are facts not provided such as the thug turning around, pointing his gun at some innocent bystander then fine; otherwise this former store manager is just a murderer and committed a much more serous crime that robbery.

I've watched quite a few episodes of "Finding Bigfoot" and I've look at the "BFRO's" website (http://www.bfro.net/  ).   I've always been curious about things like this...mysterious animals that no one knew existed until someone actually found one or unknown civilizations, etc. so part of me would like to think these animals exist.   On the other hand, I really have a difficult time believing that we don't have significant physical evidence (like a captured bigfoot of a dead body) to prove they are real.   What do you think???