Store Owner Shoots Robber In the Butt; Doesnt Get Charged...

[Guest ArmaDeFuego]

What is self-defense? Fatal shooting raises questions • Top Stories (www.HometownAnnapolis.com - The Capital)

So the store owner gets robbed & punched in the stomach. He follows the guy outside of the store after retrieving his gun & yells at him to stop. Dude turns around in a "scary way" & the store owner rips off 6 shots, with what must have been one of the last ones hitting the BG in the butt & kills him after he had turned back around again.... If he ever turned around to face the store owner in the first place. The owner probably just started shooting at him. Cant say I blame him though.

It basically comes down to the store owner's account. I dont believe there were any other witnesses. I bet it would have been hard for them to find a jury sympathetic to the dead BG that would have been willing to say the store owner was lying.

Best part of the story is when the writer sees fit to tell us exactly what kind of gun the store owner used: H&K .40 He even says what type of ammo was used: Federal JHPs.

[Guest President Fernatt]

I'm surprised he wasn't charged. I have no sympathy for thugs...but if the robber left he should not have been followed. The store owner chose to continually engage the suspect by following him when he had the option to simply lock the door and call police.

[mikegideon]

It's a shame that the bad guy couldn't tell his side of the story. Sometimes life ain't fair.

[MikePapa1]

He, technically, should be charged, but I think, like the guy here in Gallatin, who chased the burglar shooting, he probaly won't be.

[Defender]

Probably according to the way the law is interpreted, he could be charged. Acording to what I see as right and wrong, he should not. Often it depends on the opinions of the local PD and prosecuters.

[Guest President Fernatt]

I don't think there is anything "technical" about it. From the sound of things it is simply about right or wrong. If someone robbed your store and left would any of you mentally sound individuals follow the robber out of the store and then shoot him in the rear? I should hope not.

[Defender]

I don't think there is anything "technical" about it. From the sound of things it is simply about right or wrong. If someone robbed your store and left would any of you mentally sound individuals follow the robber out of the store and then shoot him in the rear? I should hope not.

There was a time when you could do that...was it wrong then? No, I wouldn't do it now because the law is pretty clear on this. But I DO understand the sentiment. When you work hard to get what little ya got, you don't appreciate some non working SOB stealing it, and most lilely getting away with it too. And I'll tell ya this much, when I was a kid, we didn't steal and one of the reason was that you stood a damn good chance of getting your ass shot off. I'm not so sure that that wasnt a better way back then.

[DaveTN]

This man is not having his life ruined by a murder trial because of the States Attorney’s office decision not to prosecute and not to take it to a grand jury.

I hope the people of that county understand that the States Attorney made a decision based on justice and not on the law….. And reelect him.

[Fallguy]

It's a shame that the bad guy couldn't tell his side of the story. Sometimes life ain't fair.

????

[mikegideon]

????

Tongue in cheek. I'm totally fine with the way it turned out, especially since there's only one side of the story.

[Fallguy]

Tongue in cheek. I'm totally fine with the way it turned out, especially since there's only one side of the story.

Ah....got ya...

[Guest ArmaDeFuego]

This man is not having his life ruined by a murder trial because of the States Attorney’s office decision not to prosecute and not to take it to a grand jury.

I hope the people of that county understand that the States Attorney made a decision based on justice and not on the law….. And reelect him.

Amen to that.

This looks like one of those rare times that common sense might have just won out over the law......

[Guest 270win]

Maryland may treat violent attacks different. The victim of the robbery may have been within his rights to go outside after the robber in that state and it seemed to be the turning with what appeared to be a weapon was what caused the robber to be shot. Tough luck for the robber. There seemed to be reasonable belief of danger by the robber because he said he had a weapon. He was still a threat. Just by leaving did not mean he was not a threat (because the victim believed the robber had a weapon) and by his turning he still could have posed a threat and shoot. The prosecutor in Maryland made the right choice.

[Defender]

This man is not having his life ruined by a murder trial because of the States Attorney’s office decision not to prosecute and not to take it to a grand jury.

I hope the people of that county understand that the States Attorney made a decision based on justice and not on the law….. And reelect him.

+1

[herr.baer]

I am sad to say that here in Maryland most times they would probably be charged because they left his store in pursuit. I am surprised that they did not press charges. The gun laws here are some of the worst and most of the politicians are stanch anti-gun. I won't be surprised if the thugs relatives sue the store owner and win. I can't wait to get out of this state.

Edited July 11, 2011 by herr.baer

[G27]

It's a shame that the bad guy couldn't tell his side of the story. Sometimes life ain't fair.

I el-oh-el'd.

This man is not having his life ruined by a murder trial because of the States Attorney’s office decision not to prosecute and not to take it to a grand jury.

I hope the people of that county understand that the States Attorney made a decision based on justice and not on the law….. And reelect him.

Totally agree.

[JayC]

Umm, unless we think the store owner isn't telling the truth... and I'm going to believe the word of the store owner over a BG robber personally... The owner was completely justified in shooting the suspect. You have a BG who has physically assaulted the owner... The owner is in a place he is legally allowed to be... and the bad guy turned and caused the store owner to be in fear for his life... That sounds like a clean justified shooting under TN law to me.

My understanding of TN law is, if you're any place you're legally allowed to be (ie outside your store) and are threatened with serious bodily injury or death, you're free to defend yourself.

I'm surprised he wasn't charged. I have no sympathy for thugs...but if the robber left he should not have been followed. The store owner chose to continually engage the suspect by following him when he had the option to simply lock the door and call police.

[Guest President Fernatt]

If you read the article it says that the store owner chased him around the building. Bullet casings were found in the front and the rear of the building. The store owner stated he kept shooting because the robber kept turning around in a scary way...really? I agree that it is a better scenario that there is only one side of the story but this doesn't seem completely justified. I don't find it at all reasonable for an individual who is safe in their store to not only exit their building in pursuit of the "scary turning" robber but to continue to chase the robber around the building firing at him and finally striking him in the butt. The robber was obviously running away. Cowardly robber running with the $? Yes. Robber deserving of death for stealing? No. It just seems like obvious revenge on behalf of the owner. For the owner to let the robber escape, then pull his personal weapon to shoot him after he has already left is ridiculous. Sorry, don't agree with all you old school guys lol forgive me.

[DaveTN]

If you read the article it says that the store owner chased him around the building. Bullet casings were found in the front and the rear of the building. The store owner stated he kept shooting because the robber kept turning around in a scary way...really? I agree that it is a better scenario that there is only one side of the story but this doesn't seem completely justified. I don't find it at all reasonable for an individual who is safe in their store to not only exit their building in pursuit of the "scary turning" robber but to continue to chase the robber around the building firing at him and finally striking him in the butt. The robber was obviously running away. Cowardly robber running with the $? Yes. Robber deserving of death for stealing? No. It just seems like obvious revenge on behalf of the owner. For the owner to let the robber escape, then pull his personal weapon to shoot him after he has already left is ridiculous. Sorry, don't agree with all you old school guys lol forgive me.

I disagree. He wasn’t just a robber; he was an armed robber that had hit this man and threatened his life with a gun. He deserved to die.

Many years ago states had “Fleeing Forcible Felony†statutes; this guy would have been bought and paid for if someone killed him. Unfortunately, most of them have been done away with.

So now instead of killing armed robbers we are sending people like Jerome Ersland to prison for life.

There is nothing right or just about it. Thankfully this States Attorney is doing what he can to protect the citizens instead of the violent criminals.

If by “Old School†you mean we aren’t liberal criminal huggers; you would be right.

[JayC]

Wow, I completely agree with Dave for once... Store owner made sure nobody else would be threatened with death by this thug... I'd buy him a beer.

I disagree. He wasn’t just a robber; he was an armed robber that had hit this man and threatened his life with a gun. He deserved to die.

Many years ago states had “Fleeing Forcible Felony” statutes; this guy would have been bought and paid for if someone killed him. Unfortunately, most of them have been done away with.

So now instead of killing armed robbers we are sending people like Jerome Ersland to prison for life.

There is nothing right or just about it. Thankfully this States Attorney is doing what he can to protect the citizens instead of the violent criminals.

If by “Old School” you mean we aren’t liberal criminal huggers; you would be right.

[Guest 270win]

Yes, there is a difference between theft and robbery. This was not theft, this was robbery. The man had a threat to his life TWICE, once in the store and once outside, and even though he went outside (there is no law to keep a store owner from going outside to watch the robber run..especially to make sure the robber is gone...now how the robber responds to that may forfeit the robber's life) he still felt in fear of his life by the turning of the robber with what appeared to be going for a weapon. Justifiable homicide here or probably in a lot of states. Now if it didn't appear the robber was turning with a weapon, then that would be different. This was a violent felon posing a threat. Pose a threat you forfeit your life and that the crook he did.

A few states probably still have fleeing felon laws where people can use deadly force to stop any fleeing felon, violent or not violent.

Edited July 12, 2011 by 270win

[Guest President Fernatt]

If by “Old School†you mean we aren’t liberal criminal huggers; you would be right.

Now, Now...Let's not get carried away by spewing such vulgarity as the "L" word

[Fallguy]

Yes, there is a difference between theft and robbery. This was not theft, this was robbery. The man had a threat to his life TWICE, once in the store and once outside, and even though he went outside (there is no law to keep a store owner from going outside to watch the robber run..especially to make sure the robber is gone...now how the robber responds to that may forfeit the robber's life) he still felt in fear of his life by the turning of the robber with what appeared to be going for a weapon. Justifiable homicide here or probably in a lot of states. Now if it didn't appear the robber was turning with a weapon, then that would be different. This was a violent felon posing a threat. Pose a threat you forfeit your life and that the crook he did.

A few states probably still have fleeing felon laws where people can use deadly force to stop any fleeing felon, violent or not violent.

Hmmmm.....some good points.