Elderly CC'er defends Internet Cafe

[BlackHawk93]

Just saw where an elderly man pulled his 380 and shot at 2 robbers who came storming in with a gun and a bat... watch the video...... as soon as the guy who had the gun saw the elderly man pointing HIS gun at him, he lit outta there like his tail was on fire. +1 for us all

http://cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/crime/2012/07/17/dnt-internet-cafe-robbery-foiled.wkmg.html

[daddyo]

Good thing he didn't hurt or kill one of them or any innocent bystanders or he most likely would be facing charges.

Edited July 18, 2012 by DaddyO

[JayC]

Good thing he didn't hurt or kill one of them or any innocent bystanders or he most likely would be facing charges.

Why would he be facing charges if he shot the armed robbers? This is a clear cut case of a justified self defense shooting.

You have two armed robbers both armed with deadly weapons... That is clearly a threat of serious bodily injury or death to this guy, and others in the room. You'd be hard pressed to fid a more clear cut case of self defense or defense of a third person on video.

[daddyo]

Why would he be facing charges if he shot the armed robbers? This is a clear cut case of a justified self defense shooting.

You have two armed robbers both armed with deadly weapons... That is clearly a threat of serious bodily injury or death to this guy, and others in the room. You'd be hard pressed to fid a more clear cut case of self defense or defense of a third person on video.

I should have been more specific. They were an immediate threat until they started running. He kept shooting at them as they were fleeing. It's only self defense when your life is in danger. When the threat is over, it's over.

Edited July 18, 2012 by DaddyO

[maroonandwhite]

I should have been more specific. They were an immediate threat until they started running. He kept shooting at them as they were fleeing. It's only self defense when your life is in danger. When the threat is over, it's over.

I believe I would have done the same thing as him. Until they are gone away alot farther than that they are a threat to me and still have guns.

That is a good point though. It all comes back to what your "line in the sand is". In that situation though I'm with him.

Edited July 18, 2012 by bendbolden

[daddyo]

I believe I would have done the same thing as him. Until they are gone away alot farther than that they are a threat to me and still have guns.

That is a good point though. It all comes back to what your "line in the sand is". In that situation though I'm with him.

Good luck with that then...

[maroonandwhite]

Who's to say that the guy doesn't go for the gun again while on the ground and fire back at the elderly man? All I am saying is just because they are running doesn't mean they aren't still a threat. I can run and shoot backwards.

[Guest President Fernatt]

Here's an earlier post with a few more details and info: http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/50275-charges-unlikely-against-man-who-shot-robbers/

[Guest drv2fst]

I commend his intent but not his execution. He did a HORRIBLE job of checking his line of fire. He was just as likely to hit the bystander with the first shot as he was to hit the robber. At least he hit the robbers a time or two. The taxpayers would be better off if he had packed a .45 on that day.

+1 for the good guy. He took two BG's out of the game for a while.

Edited July 18, 2012 by drv2fst

[RobertNashville]

Who's to say that the guy doesn't go for the gun again while on the ground and fire back at the elderly man? All I am saying is just because they are running doesn't mean they aren't still a threat. I can run and shoot backwards.

If someone is running away or is obviously attempting to disengage then, in my opinion, they no longer present an imminent threat of death or seriously bodily harm and if that is true then the you, as the armed citizen protecting himself, no longer has the legal right o engage with deadly force; at least not in TN and not as I understand TN law.

You do not shoot to kill...you shoot to stop the threat...period. Folks who fail to understand the difference can find themselves facing charges and may well have bystanders saying that the threat was over...that's not a good place to be.

[daddyo]

You do not shoot to kill...you shoot to stop the threat...period. Folks who fail to understand the difference can find themselves facing charges and may well have bystanders saying that the threat was over...that's not a good place to be.

Thank you! There are some folks who, for some reason, have real difficulty with that concept.

Edited July 18, 2012 by DaddyO

[daddyo]

Who's to say that the guy doesn't go for the gun again while on the ground and fire back at the elderly man? All I am saying is just because they are running doesn't mean they aren't still a threat. I can run and shoot backwards.

TN law says you can discharge your weapon ONLY if your life is in immediate danger. Two thugs running away from you, even though they are armed, do NOT constitute an imminent threat. Sorry.

[maroonandwhite]

Can you please point me to somewhere that backs up this statement? Not the immediate danger part but what constitutes an imminent threat. I always thought that was up to a jury to decide. I could be wrong though.

[daddyo]

http://116tuttleave....selfdefense.pdf

Page 18:

“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).â€.

Giving chase after the threat is over is playing cop and it's simply not your job. It can also land you behind bars.

Edited July 18, 2012 by DaddyO

[daddyo]

Here's another one:

http://nashvilleattorneynow.com/criminal-defense/nashville-criminal-lawyers-explain-self-defense-in-tennessee-when-can-i-use-deadly-force-for-protection/

[maroonandwhite]

Well I guess we will have to agree to disagree there. If someone comes into an internet with weapon drawn and telling me to give them money, phones, etc. then I will assume the mean me harm. If they are running away then I will still assume they can change there minds, turn around, shoot me, then continue collecting money, phones, etc. I agree with you about not "giving chase" and not firing when the threat is over but this guy hardly gave chase. Again it is a fine line. If he had stepped out of the door into the street and kept firing then I wouldn't agree with that. He was inside with just a glass door in between him and the bad guy.

Also that article does not back up the statement that "Two thugs running away from you, even though they are armed, do NOT constitute an imminent threat."

[daddyo]

Also that article does not back up the statement that "Two thugs running away from you, even though they are armed, do NOT constitute an imminent threat."

I don't even know what to say to that...

[maroonandwhite]

Well that does sound like I am just trying to argue with you now that I look at it.

I guess the point I am trying to make is I just don't agree that the guy was chasing after them and that the articles you listed (or anything else I have read for that matter) don't clearly define when the danger is over. That is up to us to decide and live with the consequences of our actions and decisions. I respect your opinion but just don't agree with it. It just can't be that cut and dry.

[daddyo]

It just can't be that cut and dry.

Where the law is concerned, yes it can and often times is. What part of "imminent threat" are you having difficulty with?

[maroonandwhite]

The part where you are defining imminent threat as being over when the bad guy is running away no matter what. You can't know for sure what his next move is going to be. If he gets outside and the "Good guy" follows him out the door and shoots him then yeah that's bad. If I am still inside the computer cafe and he can still shoot at me then no the threat isn't over. I am solely arguing this based on the evidence and video in this case; not ANY case. Again I am not arguing that running away cannot (and in most cases probably will) be perceived as a threat being ended; just not in this case.

[daddyo]

The part where you are defining imminent threat as being over when the bad guy is running away no matter what. You can't know for sure what his next move is going to be. If he gets outside and the "Good guy" follows him out the door and shoots him then yeah that's bad. If I am still inside the computer cafe and he can still shoot at me then no the threat isn't over. I am solely arguing this based on the evidence and video in this case; not ANY case. Again I am not arguing that running away cannot (and in most cases probably will) be perceived as a threat being ended; just not in this case.

What difference does being outside make? He can still shoot at you, can he not? I'm not understanding your criteria for differentiating between the two.

Imminent threat simply means that you are in IMMEDIATE danger of injury or death. Someone running away from you (not directly threatening you) does not constitute an imminent threat. It really is that simple.

Bottom line is that the law doesn't give you permission to go around shooting at anything that you think is a threat if it really isn't. If what you think is a threat doesn't conform to the language and letter of the law, then you're simply screwed. Fact, not opinion.

Edited July 18, 2012 by DaddyO

[maroonandwhite]

The difference is if they were outside that would mean the GG would have followed (gave chase) the BG outside. If they are inside the GG did not give chase to the BG. Again I don't agree with your definition of imminent threat and to restate what I said earlier I and just about anyone can shoot backwards while they run.

[daddyo]

The difference is if they were outside that would mean the GG would have followed (gave chase) the BG outside. If they are inside the GG did not give chase to the BG. Again I don't agree with your definition of imminent threat and to restate what I said earlier I and just about anyone can shoot backwards while they run.

It's not my definition. I guess you didn't watch the same video I did, because I clearly saw him chase the two thugs INSIDE the cafe.

Wow, just wow.

[maroonandwhite]

Maybe he was chasing or maybe he was moving for a better shot. We will never know but you have to entertain all possibility's. As stated in the articles charges will probably not be filed so I say good shoot. I respect your opinion but still don't agree. If someone can show me where the law clearly say's that just because these guys were running away that they could no longer do any harm then I will seriously consider changing my opinion. Until then I say good shoot.

[TMF]

I saw a video a few years ago of a pawn shop being robbed by three gun men. There were two clerks at the counter. One clerk pulled a gun and began firing. The robbers turned to flee. One of the robbers fired several shots as he was running out the door, hitting the other clerk in the neck. The robber wasn't even facing the direction he was shooting.

As far as I'm concerned, if they are still armed they are still a threat. If police disagree then fine. I'll let a jury decide. If twelve people can all agree that I wasn't in fear for my life then I would be surprised. I'd be curious to see the burden of proof the state would have to get 12 people to believe, beyond a reasonable doubt, that I wasn't in fear for my life... real curious. The police have video evidence and they aren't so much as charging him. I wouldn't be surprised if they give him some kind of honorary reward.

Either way, I'm not going to lose sleep over what one person's opinion of the law is versus another. It really doesn't matter. If I'm in fear for my life then I'm in fear for my life. It is really that simple. If my decision to shoot or not is contigent on whether I think I might be charged or sued afterwards, then I must not be in fear for my life, because if I was, the concern for what happens after the incident would be moot... because I'd likely be dead.