No Charges for this Guy. WOW!

[Mike.357]

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.

 

I am pretty sure the DA bases his charges on laws being broken,  not whether they can get a jury to convict.   what kind of legal system would that amount to?  And I would go out on a limb and assume the facts do clear the manager because of this thought line.   There are stories in the KNS where someone is found not guilty of something.  

Edited May 1, 2013 by Mike.357

[RobertNashville]

I am pretty sure the DA bases his charges on laws being broken,  not whether they can get a jury to convict.   what kind of legal system would that amount to?  And I would go out on a limb and assume the facts do clear the manager because of this thought line.   There are stories in the KNS where someone is found not guilty of something.

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...
 

Prosecutorial Discretion
As an elected or appointed official, the prosecutor is the most powerful official in the criminal justice system. Prosecutors exercise unfettered discretion, deciding who to charge with a crime, what charges to file, when to drop the charges, whether or not to plea bargain, and how to allocate prosecutorial resources. In jurisdictions where the death penalty is in force, the prosecutor literally decides who should live and who should die by virtue of the charging decision.

Criminal justice professors Joseph Senna and Larry Siegel propose the true measure of a prosecutor. In their view, a litmus test for the integrity of a prosecutor is how he or she answers the following question: “When you exercise discretion, are you more concerned with fairness, the likelihood of conviction, or political considerations?”
Prosecutors exercise the most discretion in three areas of decision making: the decision to file charges, the decision to dismiss charges, and plea bargaining.

Charging
Once an arrest is made, a prosecutor screens the case to determine if it should be prosecuted or dropped. The decision to prosecute is based on the following factors:

• The sufficiency of the evidence linking the suspect to the offense.
• The seriousness of the offense.
• The size of the court's caseload.
• The need to conserve prosecutorial resources for more serious cases.
• The availability of alternatives to formal prosecution.
• The defendant's culpability (moral blameworthiness)
• The defendant's criminal record.
• The defendant's willingness to cooperate with the investigation or prosecution of others.

http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/Prosecutorial-Discretion.topicArticleId-10065,articleId-10015.html

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.

Edited May 1, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Mike.357]

I dunno.  I believe if Nichol's thought the store manager broke a law he would have charged him.  Killing someone is the Ace of Spades of crime,  I believe all resources would be expended if they thought there was a crime committed.

 

I also believe a jury can render a guilty verdict if the prosecutor can prove his case,  regardless of who was killed.

[JayC]

Agreed but you keep think of this as a single incident, instead of a string of incidents....

 

The threat of death or serious bodily injury while in the store, may well have been over, and the manager no longer had a justified self defense situation.  But, chasing/following the suspect is still covered by the 'stand your ground law'...  Unless you contend that the manager while following the suspect was either someplace he couldn't legally be (clearly not) or was doing something illegal (which doesn't appear to be the case).

 

So you have 2 out of 3 legs of the 'stand your ground' law in place...  all that remains is a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury.  The instant that happens, the manager would be back in a justified self defense situation.  Some would argue that a fleeing armed felon who has threatened to kill you with a gun already could very easily pose a threat of death or serious bodily injury if he was within range to shoot you (which is clearly the case here), even if he's running away when you hit him.

 

Clearly the DA didn't think it was a good case, and did the right thing.

 

Anyhow my point in my quoted post was that by following after a armed robber while you might be 'escalating' the situation, does not interfere with your ability to claim self defense under 39-11-601 ie our 'stand your ground' law.

 

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.

 

[RobertNashville]

Agreed but you keep think of this as a single incident, instead of a string of incidents....
 
The threat of death or serious bodily injury while in the store, may well have been over, and the manager no longer had a justified self defense situation.  But, chasing/following the suspect is still covered by the 'stand your ground law'...  Unless you contend that the manager while following the suspect was either someplace he couldn't legally be (clearly not) or was doing something illegal (which doesn't appear to be the case).
 
So you have 2 out of 3 legs of the 'stand your ground' law in place...  all that remains is a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury.  The instant that happens, the manager would be back in a justified self defense situation.  Some would argue that a fleeing armed felon who has threatened to kill you with a gun already could very easily pose a threat of death or serious bodily injury if he was within range to shoot you (which is clearly the case here), even if he's running away when you hit him.
 
Clearly the DA didn't think it was a good case, and did the right thing.
 
Anyhow my point in my quoted post was that by following after a armed robber while you might be 'escalating' the situation, does not interfere with your ability to claim self defense under 39-11-601 ie our 'stand your ground' law.

I'm not sure how you can make this into two separate events but I think at best it's a distinction without a difference.

In this prior post you asked the question...
 

Care to cite the state law that says this? Because I'm not aware of said state law.

So, I ask you the same question you asked SWJewellTN because I've looked at the law and I see nothing that indicates that a civilian can pursue a fleeing felon and use deadly force to subdue him. In fact, what has already been quoted earlier by me and in more detail by SWJewellTN indicates exactly the opposite of your position.

[TMF]

[
So, I ask you the same question you asked SWJewellTN because I've looked at the law and I see nothing that indicates that a civilian can pursue a fleeing felon and use deadly force to subdue him.

Who is saying he used deadly force to "subdue" him? The term "subdue" suggests he used deadly force in order to apprehend the deceased. If the deceased was still armed he was still a threat, regardless which direction he is faced. I've at least had the experience of being in several gun fights, and promise you that an armed individual is a threat no matter which way he is facing. You can disagree with me, but you would be dead wrong.

[RobertNashville]

Who is saying he used deadly force to "subdue" him? The term "subdue" suggests he used deadly force in order to apprehend the deceased. If the deceased was still armed he was still a threat, regardless which direction he is faced. I've at least had the experience of being in several gun fights, and promise you that an armed individual is a threat no matter which way he is facing. You can disagree with me, but you would be dead wrong.

People above said it and I replied...didn't you read the posts???

 

A civilian only has the right in Tennessee to use deadly force to stop a threat of death or serious bodily injury - a thug who has disengaged and is leaving the scene is no longer a threat unless he does something to reengage and there are no facts in the stories about this incident to show that the thug was doing anything to reengage.

 

If you know of other facts rather than assumptions about this incident then feel free to share them.

Edited May 1, 2013 by RobertNashville

[TMF]

People above said it and I replied...didn't you read the posts???

I don't care how many gunfights you were in; a thug who has left the store and is running away (which is all we actually know happened) is no threat and a civilian has no right to used deadly force once the threat is over.

I was quoting you, not them.

And once again, you're making assumptions in a bubble. You don't know the circumstances that existed with the exception of what was in a left leaning story. For all you know he was trying to get a better description, or see which way the guy ran so he could provide more info for police when he saw the deceased present the weapon. You just don't know, so I don't see why you're convinced this guy should be charged when the investigating officers and DA seem to disagree. So either you know more than those folks do or you're just talking out your ass.

I maintain that anyone who has just threatened my life with a deadly weapon is a viable threat no matter which way he is facing so long as he still has that weapon. That includes if he is running away.

[tnhawk]

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.

While I feel no sorrow for the thug getting shot, as said above, it wasn't correct under current laws to shoot him in the back.

[RobertNashville]

I was quoting you, not them.

Maybe you should have looked at the posts I was replying to.


 

And once again, you're making assumptions in a bubble. You don't know the circumstances that existed with the exception of what was in a left leaning story. For all you know he was trying to get a better description, or see which way the guy ran so he could provide more info for police when he saw the deceased present the weapon. You just don't know, so I don't see why you're convinced this guy should be charged when the investigating officers and DA seem to disagree. So either you know more than those folks do or you're just talking out your ass.

I maintain that anyone who has just threatened my life with a deadly weapon is a viable threat no matter which way he is facing so long as he still has that weapon. That includes if he is running away.

 

So....forming an opinion based only the information presented in the stories means I'm making assumptions, apparently, by not making assumptions. :shrug:

 

• Tell me with certainty who fired the fist shot or if the bad guy fired at all.

• Tell me with certainty if the bad guy turned around or was only and always running away.

• Tell me with certainty how the bad guy ended up with a gunshot wound in his back.

• Tell me exactly what was in the police report/the investigation report on the incident.

 

If we had answers to those questions it could have a substantial barring on my opinion but until someone can tell me those things I'll stick to what the stories have said and based on what the stories have said I see nothing to justify this manager's actions after the thug left the store.

 

Maintain what you want abut a retreating thug being a threat that justifies deadly force...my training doesn't agree with you and my reading of TN law doesn't agree with that assertion either.

Edited May 1, 2013 by RobertNashville

[TMF]

Robert, why is the onus on anyone here to provide you with evidence that this guy was justified in this shooting? You are the one saying that he isn't. I'm merely saying you don't have all the facts to support that this guy is a "murderer" (your words). All we know is the manager killed the guy and he isn't being charged.

Why you are so steadfast that there is more to the story suggests you know more about it. Could you point us to the source that clearly lays out all the facts to support your theory that this guy is a murderer and the DA is wrong for not charging him please? Otherwise you are talking out your ass again and arguing just to argue.

[RobertNashville]

There is no onus on anyone to do anything.

 

As to facts, I have just as many facts to support my opinion about this incident as you do, I simply don't hold the same opinion yet you've been riding my ass about my opinion since page 1 (post no 20).

 

I have never said or indicated that I know more about the facts of this case than anyone else; in fact, exactly the opposite - I've said, likely a dozen or more times, that I'm going on and only going on what the stories have said; I don't know how to say it more simply than that.

 

The manager committed a homicide - I've already explained in multiple posts my reasoning for believing that the homicide was a murder which, of necessity, makes the manager a murderer. Everybody else, including you, is free to hold their own opinions.

Edited May 1, 2013 by RobertNashville

[DaveTN]

I don’t claim to be an expert on the laws of all 50 states, but I’m pretty comfortable with my own interpretation of the use of deadly force that I think would protect me from a criminal conviction in all 50 states.

 

If me, or someone around me is in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm; the use of deadly force is justified. While I (as a citizen) would not have fired on him I think the argument could be made that the immediate threat of death or great bodily harm was still in play with the perpetrator of a violent felony running with a gun in his hand. I wouldn’t want to have to go to trial to make that argument; but I don’t think a jury would convict.

 

If I was a cop I would have shot him dead just like the manager did and no one but the usual suspects that always question a cop shooting would have said anything about it.

 

Everyone in the area was in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm when the manager shot him.

 

As far as who fired first; unless the news story are wrong the Manager said he fired his weapon first.

 

 

[RobertNashville]

I don’t claim to be an expert on the laws of all 50 states, but I’m pretty comfortable with my own interpretation of the use of deadly force that I think would protect me from a criminal conviction in all 50 states.

 

If me, or someone around me is in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm; the use of deadly force is justified. While I (as a citizen) would not have fired on him I think the argument could be made that the immediate threat of death or great bodily harm was still in play with the perpetrator of a violent felony running with a gun in his hand. I wouldn’t want to have to go to trial to make that argument; but I don’t think a jury would convict.

 

If I was a cop I would have shot him dead just like the manager did and no one but the usual suspects that always question a cop shooting would have said anything about it.

 

Everyone in the area was in immediate danger of death or great bodily harm when the manager shot him.

 

As far as who fired first; unless the news story are wrong the Manager said he fired his weapon first.

I didn't read anywhere that the manager said he fired first; guess I missed it. While I respect your opinion, hearing that the manager fired first reinforces my opinion that the manager escalated and even caused a gun fight where there didn't need to be one.

 

I can understand that a thug with a gun is a "threat"; but if he is disengaging (running away) and not doing anything to reengage (turning around, pointing his weapon at someone, etc.) I don't see how, under TN law, he could be considered an active threat or to put it another way, I don't see how this manager he is fleeing from has a reasonable fear of imminent death or grave bodily injury sufficient to claim self-defense.

 

Even assuming the thug is an active threat; I would think that starting a gunfight potentially puts a lot more innocent people at risk than the thug running away...had this gunfight ended with an innocent bystander getting shot or killed I wonder if some who have been vocal in support of this manager would be singing a different tune. :shrug:

 

The part I doubt I'll ever get past is that the thug was shot in the back...citizens aren't cops or soldiers and we aren't supposed to be vigilantes. Even if this thug deserved to be shot, shooting someone in the back is an act that just strikes me as cowardly and smacks not of "self-defense" but of dishing out justice.

[Mike.357]

this sheds some light,  seems the manager returned fire of the guy fleeing.

 

 

 

“I saw the gun,” Smith said. “I heard the shot. I didn’t hit the ground. I fired.”

The gunman missed, but Smith hit his mark. Knoxville Police Department officers found the body of Justin Pierre Jackson, 30, in a nearby alley less than half an hour later.

Police also found Jackson’s gun, a .38-caliber revolver, along with around $600 in cash and a bullet hole in the shed behind the Dollar General, 4112 Asheville Highway, where Smith, a former soldier and Gulf War veteran, worked as manager the night of Feb. 27 when Jackson picked the store to rob.

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2013/may/03/ex-dollar-general-store-manager-recalls-gunfight/

 

[macville]

Mike you beat me to posting the article. This story shows why constitutional carry is important. Also, since there was no charge to go arm, it shows that  39-17-1322 worked as it should.

 

 

Wondering if he didn't renew his HCP because of the cost? Can we say poll tax?

[TMF]

[quote data-cid='963964' name='Mike.357' timestamp='1367582994' post='963964']this sheds some light, seems the manager returned fire of the guy fleeing.




“I saw the gun,” Smith said. “I heard the shot. I didn’t hit the ground. I fired.”
The gunman missed, but Smith hit his mark. Knoxville Police Department officers found the body of Justin Pierre Jackson, 30, in a nearby alley less than half an hour later.
Police also found Jackson’s gun, a .38-caliber revolver, along with around $600 in cash and a bullet hole in the shed behind the Dollar General, 4112 Asheville Highway, where Smith, a former soldier and Gulf War veteran, worked as manager the night of Feb. 27 when Jackson picked the store to rob.
http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2013/may/03/ex-dollar-general-store-manager-recalls-gunfight/

[/quote][/quote]

So people can shoot at you when their back is turned? I'll be damned. Just a few posts up someone said that anyone who shoots someone in the back is a coward and a murderer.

[RobertNashville]

this sheds some light,  seems the manager returned fire of the guy fleeing.

:confused:   What you quoted in your post above seems to be in contradiction to DaveTN's post above when he said  "As far as who fired first; unless the news story are wrong the Manager said he fired his weapon first."

 

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what DaveTN actually meant and I don't know what story DaveTN referred to but if the manager fired first then how could "return file"???

 

Anyway, if the thug actually fired first and the manager was returning file then it puts the story in a very different light...I still would not have followed the thug into the parking - I believe it was incredibly stupid and just put more people in more danger...I also don't think pursuing the thug into the parking was legal under TN law; charges filed or no chance of a jury conviction notwithstanding.

 

 

P.S....shooting someone in the back is still an act that strikes me as cowardly and smacks not of "self-defense" but of dishing out justice.

Edited May 3, 2013 by RobertNashville

[TMF]

Ann yeah...shooting someone in the back is still an act that strikes me as cowardly and smacks not of "self-defense" but of dishing out justice.

So an innocent who is threatened with a deadly weapon and subsequently shot at by an armed robber is a coward because the orientation of the criminal when he shot back??? God forbid you ever find yourself in any similar situation, but hey, easy for you to make such distinctions from your armchair. You should be ashamed for your comments. Typical elitist attitude of you to have, Robert.

[RobertNashville]

So an innocent who is threatened with a deadly weapon and subsequently shot at by an armed robber is a coward because the orientation of the criminal when he shot back??? God forbid you ever find yourself in any similar situation, but hey, easy for you to make such distinctions from your armchair. You should be ashamed for your comments. Typical elitist attitude of you to have, Robert.

Yeah...shooting someone in the back is a cowardly act.  I really don't care if you agree with me or not.

 

Yes, armchair quarterbacking is easy as you should know since that's exactly what you and everyone else here does when we are dealing with news stories on incidents like this

 

I'm not at all ashamed of my comments nor "should I be".

Edited May 3, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Mike.357]

my original theory was the manager pursued to get a license number or more info for police.  Seems that was true.  I do not see that as out of the ordinary at all.  I was robbed at gunpoint some time ago and i also went outside to see if I could get more information to give police.  I will venture a guess that this action is a common occurrence after a robbery occurs.

 

I do not see DaveTN as a news source, just another commenter on this board.  This story from KNS and first hand comments from the store manager seem to clarify any question as to what actually happened.  Previous stories included no direct quotes from the man, only second or third hand information.

[RobertNashville]

my original theory was the manager pursued to get a license number or more info for police.  Seems that was true.  I do not see that as out of the ordinary at all.  I was robbed at gunpoint some time ago and i also went outside to see if I could get more information to give police.  I will venture a guess that this action is a common occurrence after a robbery occurs.

 

I do not see DaveTN as a news source, just another commenter on this board.  This story from KNS and first hand comments from the store manager seem to clarify any question as to what actually happened.  Previous stories included no direct quotes from the man, only second or third hand information.

I don't consider DaveTN a news source either but he is a LEO if I remember correctly and give more credence to what he has to say than on issues like this than the rest of us (even when I don't agree with him.

 

And yes, the additional stories help a lot.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I didn't know the benchmark was who shot first, anyway. If a gun is pointed at you, are you going to let him fire first?

Not me, if I can help it.

[TMF]

Yeah...shooting someone in the back is a cowardly act. I really don't care if you agree with me or not.

I bet you wouldn't say it to this man's face nor any other victim of violent crime who fought back and happen to hit their assailant in the back. You are the only coward in this scenario.

[RobertNashville]

I didn't know the benchmark was who shot first, anyway. If a gun is pointed at you, are you going to let him fire first?

Not me, if I can help it.

No, I'm not going to let him shoot first.

 

However, if the thug was just trying to get away I doubt very much that I'm going to pursue the thug into the parking lot to give him a chance to point it at me either.  ;)