Elderly CC'er defends Internet Cafe

[maroonandwhite]

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.

Good post. Probably what I should have said to begin with.

Also DaddyO no hard feelings. I'm here to learn.

[daddyo]

Just have to say.... lots of really bad advice in this thread.

[daddyo]

I'm here to learn.

Let me know when you do.

Edited July 18, 2012 by DaddyO

[maroonandwhite]

Let me know when you do.

Still waiting for a link...

[daddyo]

Still waiting for a link...

I gave you two, and you ignored them, so why should I waste time giving you a third?

Done here.

Edited July 18, 2012 by DaddyO

[maroonandwhite]

Neither of them answered this simple question which is the main point I am trying to argue.

"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]

Just have to say.... lots of really bad advice in this thread.

I'm looking and don't see anyone dispensing advice except for you. My post was very clear, making a choice to defend your life is not something that is methodically planned and accepted. It is a decision that is made in the moment that your life is threatened. If one is considering the law on whether or not they should use deadly force to defend themselves then they must not be in danger, because I would assume that laws and lawsuits are secondary to the preservation of ones life. Am I wrong... I mean, are you more concerned with going to jail then dying? I know I'm not.

[daddyo]

I'm looking and don't see anyone dispensing advice except for you. My post was very clear, making a choice to defend your life is not something that is methodically planned and accepted. It is a decision that is made in the moment that your life is threatened. If one is considering the law on whether or not they should use deadly force to defend themselves then they must not be in danger, because I would assume that laws and lawsuits are secondary to the preservation of ones life. Am I wrong... I mean, are you more concerned with going to jail then dying? I know I'm not.

Look, if you want to shoot someone because they "might" shoot you as they're running out the door, then, by all means, be my guest. Me, I'm going to wait until I see the gun pointed in my direction.

What the law says is not going to be my primary consideration in a real DGU, but anyone who doesn't at least acknowledge how it can ruin your life is a fool.

[daddyo]

Neither of them answered this simple question which is the main point I am trying to argue.

"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."

Then go and ask a qualified instructor. If you really want to learn, that is.

Edited July 18, 2012 by DaddyO

[maroonandwhite]

TMF I agree with your first post but not so much the second. While I see where you are coming from I still would try my best to be within the law. I have no illusion that I will be in a level headed state if it ever does happen though.

DaddyO:

[TMF]

Look, if you want to shoot someone because they "might" shoot you as they're running out the door, then, by all means, be my guest. Me, I'm going to wait until I see the gun pointed in my direction.

What the law says is not going to be my primary consideration in a real DGU, but anyone who doesn't at least acknowledge how it can ruin your life is a fool.

Sure, it should be every HCP holder's duty to know the relevant laws. As I understand it you can defend yourself, or others, using deadly force if threat of death or great bodily harm is imminent. Seems pretty clear. I think it is also something that can be used to Monday morning quarterback. I think that your perception of what is an imminent threat would change drastically if a firearm was just pulled on you or you were shot at.

Understanding that these laws aren't quite the same, having been in a few gunfights over the years and even more "near shoots" I've taken away the experience of what it feels like to ask myself "should I shoot right now?" That answer always answered itself as "no". In the dozen or so occasions that I've fired my weapon I can't recall ever asking myself that question, because it was immediately obvious that my life or the lives of others were in danger.

Applying this to carry, I understand the laws, but I also understand how quickly things happen in those scenarios and that if the situation ever occurs that I have to shoot, I won't be considering laws at the time, because I will be in fear for my life. It is quite the simple equation.

[DaveS]

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.

Watch the video....you will clearly see when it's over!

[DaveS]

I don't think a thug armed with a "ball bat" running AWAY is much of a threat!

But anyways...two little punks got a little treat!

Edited July 20, 2012 by wd-40

[maroonandwhite]

I don't think a thug armed with a "ballbat" running AWAY is much of a threat!

But anyways...two little punks got a little treat!

He had know way of knowing whether he had a gun on him as well or not. If one guy did I would assume the other guy at least might have one.

[True Grit]

Did everyone watch the same clip from several angles that I saw? It looks to me that he did cross the line from self defense to offense when he chased the BG's out the door, held the door open and fired outside the store at the fleeing suspects. He just opened the door for a civil suit. I applaud his courage but his actions appear over the line. The real question is just when does the threat actually end? At what point do fleeing suspects stop becoming a threat? I guess that will be answered by a jury.

[gjohnsoniv]

People can still be a threat even if they are on the ground. As long as they have a weapon in their hand some could still consider them a "threat." As far as most are concerned he did what was right and no one was killed.

[maroonandwhite]

Did everyone watch the same clip from several angles that I saw? It looks to me that he did cross the line from self defense to offense when he chased the BG's out the door, held the door open and fired outside the store at the fleeing suspects. He just opened the door for a civil suit. I applaud his courage but his actions appear over the line. The real question is just when does the threat actually end? At what point do fleeing suspects stop becoming a threat? I guess that will be answered by a jury.

He didn't hold the door open and shoot at them from what I saw. He fired at them multiple times until they left and THEN the threat was over. In the training I have taken I have learned that you cannot expect to always have a perfect shot at the BG by standing still the whole time. As far as I am concerned he could have been moving not only to get a better shot at the BG but getting the other folks out of the line of fire. I will say he was awful close to a few folks but in the end no one was shot but the BG.

[Guest President Fernatt]

I think he crossed the line but I am incredibly glad that no charges are being filed. I would imagine if I was in that situation I would have fired from behind my chair...or if I did approach the "bad guy" to fire as this gentleman did...I would fire and quickly kneel beside the counter (gun still aimed and ready) as the "bad guys" were fleeing to both have cover and be prepared to fire again in the event the criminals turned around to shoot at me.

The above "take cover" scenario seems a little tactical I know, but I feel it would be against every instinct in my body to stand and fire, then continually advance towards a fleeing suspect in an effort to inflict more damage. I can't help but believe I would attempt to take some cover from my chair or a counter and cease fire once the suspects begin to flee.

That's my I guess....I know I can certainly say the back and forth between you all is worthy though.

[maroonandwhite]

Just a final note on this and hopefully I can leave my at the door. (It's so hard!) I hope I did not offend anyone with my opinions as it was not my intention.

[dats82]

He had know way of knowing whether he had a gun on him as well or not. If one guy did I would assume the other guy at least might have one.

By this logic, you could almost make a case to shoot any suspicious suspect. I know that is a slippery slope, but that is a poor argument, to shoot someone because they might have a gun.

I will say my reason tends to align more with what you and TMF are saying, especially to say that you have to make those decisions under much different circumstances than just us hashing them out on our key boards. If I can try to put myself in that position mentally, I think I would not follow them to the door, but I probably would not stop shooting until they were out of the building

BTW, Go State!

Edited July 18, 2012 by dats82

[True Grit]

He didn't hold the door open and shoot at them from what I saw.

I stand corrected.

[Makiaveli]

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.

I believe the standard is fear for your life etc etc. Just because they went out the door doesn't mean they aren't going to come back. Look again at the last shot he fired, when the guy was on the ground. The BG was facing him, not face down etc. Are you trying to say he should have waited to see if the BG was going to draw a gun or point it at etc before he fired?

I think the problem here is the idea that just because they are running away I AUTOMATICALLY lose the LEGAL right to be in fear of my life. It isn't unreasonable to be in fear of them coming back.

By this logic, you could almost make a case to shoot any suspicious suspect. I know that is a slippery slope, but that is a poor argument, to shoot someone because they might have a gun.

No that isn't a logical extrapolation at all. Both were armed. A bat is a weapon when wielded as I assume you would agree. Also, they were acting suspicious, they were actively attempting a robbery. I don't see the slope on that, much less a slippery one.

My take on this is he did not chase them or "act like a cop". He engaged them in his and other's defense. When they exited the building and were actively leaving the area, he stopped firing. What could possibly be wrong about that? What was he supposed to do? Wait until they harmed people and not just expensive computer screens? I think he was absolutely right in what he did.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Makiaveli

[dats82]

No that isn't a logical extrapolation at all. Both were armed. A bat is a weapon when wielded as I assume you would agree. Also, they were acting suspicious, they were actively attempting a robbery. I don't see the slope on that, much less a slippery one.

He had know way of knowing whether he had a gun on him as well or not. If one guy did I would assume the other guy at least might have one.

I did not imply that the guy was unarmed, but I am much less likely to shoot the guy for a bat vs a gun, especially if he is just knocking around computers. The post I quoted was assuming that, because he was with someone who had a gun, he "might have [a gun]" as well. (Please see above, I quoted it again for you). By all means a bat could be a weapon but probably not so much if the guy is all the way across the room.

I am also not saying the guy was not justified in shooting the batter; I probably would have too. However, if you take the bat away, and continue with the same logic. Perhaps we'll call it, armed by association. Then, you have just shot an unarmed suspect, who was all the way across the room from you. That might not end very well if you have to explain to twelve other people why you felt this man to be such a threat. Again, I know in this particular scenario, the bat is certainly weapon enough. I was just making the point that you cannot assume that a person might have a gun just because they are with someone who does indeed have a gun.

Edited July 19, 2012 by dats82

[RobertNashville]

Neither of them answered this simple question which is the main point I am trying to argue.

"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."

The law doesn't say anything about "running away" just like is isn't going to try and cover the other 10,000 possibilities that can arise in a situation....the law assumes that you can understand what does and what doesn't constitute an "imminent threat".

That said, when the thugs are falling over themselves trying to get out the door and run away that should be an indication that the "threat" is over hence it is no longer imminent hence if you shoot and/or kill one of them at that point you'll likely be facing a jury who will decide where you spend the next few years.

Edited July 19, 2012 by RobertNashville

[TMF]

Well let's Monday morning quarterback this for a second... it's what we do and there isn't anything wrong with using these examples at what to do or not do in a situation by determining what was probably right and what was probably wrong, so long as we give the respect of context to the individual that did the shooting. After all, we don't know what was going through his mind, and if I was sitting on a jury the prosecution would have a hard time convincing me beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed a crime, unless there is some sort of extenuating evidence or aggravating factor... such as the shooter was drunk, or had recently bragged about wanting to shoot some punks.

With that said, let's look at what was probably the best choice in his situation.

I've said many times that I ain't gonna get in a gunfight over other people's money. However, I don't have a moral objection over someone defending their property with deadly force. After all, what's mine is mine. If someone wants to take that from me I have the right to say "no", and if they decide to imply deadly force as an alternative to my response then I should have the right to respond in kind. The only thing that would get me to pull my weapon in that scenario is if it was very clear that they were intending to shoot someone, or have already shot someone. In that event I would feel morally obligated to do my best to stop it. Once again, I wasn't there and I wasn't the old man. Perhaps that is how he perceived it and felt that these guys were acting violently enough that they intended to shoot someone. There are plenty of robberies where the thug will just shoot people for no reason even after they've achieved their goals of theft or rape.

Another reason that I would not pull my weapon is the number of people inside. I would be more concerned that a bystander would be hit by my rounds or the criminal's rounds during the exchange than if the criminals just got their money and left. By pulling my weapon I have entered a known quantity. At that point I know that there is going to be shooting. However, to let the criminals do their thing is an unknown quantity. Will they shoot someone or not? I don't know. Whether or not one believes that the criminals would shoot someone unprovoked is a matter of perception. Of course, sitting behind my keyboard looking at the video, I can clearly see that one of them has a firearm and is threatening people with it, so I don't think it is some kind of great leap in logic to figure they intend on using it. I certainly would feel the same if I was sitting on the jury hearing that argument from the defense.

In regard to him following the criminals and continually engaging them: By this point this old man was probably acting on pure fear and adrenaline. This guy probably has never been in a scenario in his life such as this. Although his actions may look blatently aggressive, this is a natural response to fear; fight, flight or submit. He chose fight. When you choose fight it is biologically wired to take the offensive. He took the offensive, and the fear prevented him from backing down. In fact, based on how he manuevers himself within the establishment, it appears that he is continually positioning himself to avoid having bystanders in his line of fire. So I think that it could be interpreted either way. The only shot that is damning, IMO, is the final one through the doorway. At this point it should be pretty clear that the criminals are trying to just get away. However, keep in mind that the shooter is still acting on extreme fear, so if that criminal is still armed he may feel as if he will return fire.

I guess what I'm saying is that I know what I would do if I had the ability to think it out as I'm sitting behind a keyboard. I realize, though, that this all occurred in a matter of seconds, and the defender here was not expecting this to happen. He was just playing poker on a computer when two armed men came and threatened his life and the lives of the people around them. If anyone here thinks that in those few seconds you will make all the "right" decisions then you are kidding yourself. You can plan all you want in your head to consider all the ways you would react in various circumstances, but let me leave you with one of the most true statements I have ever heard, and have seen it play out in real life more times than I can count:

"No plan survives first contact."