How will this play out? Shooting.

[BBQJOE]

2 shot during jewelry store robbery

http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/0703abrk-jewelry0703-ON.html

Becky Bartkowski
The Arizona Republic
Jul. 3, 2007 10:08 AM
Two men were shot during a robbery at a south Phoenix jewelry store Monday afternoon.

The men, along with a woman who was not shot, reportedly attempted to rob Luxor Jewelers on the 500 block of East Baseline Road at about 2:30 p.m., according to a statement from Sgt. Joel Tranter, Phoenix police spokesman.

Both of the male suspects were taken to local hospitals and still in medical care Tuesday morning, according to the statement. Neither man has been charged yet, according to the statement.




One of the men has not been identified, but officials do not expect that he will survive due to life-threatening injuries, according to Phoenix police documents. The man is between 18 and 23 years old.

Damon McLemore, 19, suffered a serious gunshot wound, according to the documents.

Brittany Janice Harlin, 18, walked into Luxor and asked to see a jewelry item, according to Tranter's statement. The male suspects then entered Luxor armed with handguns and started robbing the store, while Harlin left Luxor with the jewelry item.

As the male suspects robbed the jewelry store, Luxor Jewelers employees left through the back of the store.

Two Luxor employees, David Fierro, 35, and Abraham Olivas, 22, took handguns with them as they left the store, according to the statement.

Fierro and Olivas exchanged gunfire with the male suspects in the Kmart parking lot west of Luxor Jewelers, according to the statement.

The unidentified male suspect collapsed in the parking lot after he was shot and McLemore and Harlin fled in a red car, according to the statement.

Phoenix police later found McLemore and Harlin at a local hospital. McLemore was being treated for a serious gunshot wound and Harlin was arrested on suspicion of armed robbery, according to the statement.

Officials did not reveal how much jewelry was stolen, but did recover all property and weapons.



I'm awfully curious how this will play out, being at the time of the shooting the employees were probably not any longer in immediate threat to loss of life or great injury.

 

[Bazooka Joe71]

Its always nice to see when the good guys are better shots than the bad guys.

You said the employees left the back of the store...Did they chase the suspects or did the suspects chase them?

 

[pacodelahoya]

Once again, I'll shed no tears for the armed robbers. I hope the employees get a good attorney and an understanding jury.

 

[Car Knocker]

I'm awfully curious how this will play out, being at the time of the shooting the employees were probably not any longer in immediate threat to loss of life or great injury.

How did you determine that from the info given in the story?

 

[HUMONGO]

How did you determine that from the info given in the story?

Thats what I took from the story...

 

[Standing Wolf]

Its always nice to see when the good guys are better shots than the bad guys.

Whenever the criminals lose, we win. We've lived in fear of them more than long enough. It's time for them to live in fear of us.

 

[BBQJOE]

How did you determine that from the info given in the story?

The article says while the robbery was going on they (employees) went out the back door with their guns, and exchanged fire with the bg's in a parking lot.

I believe the bg's got what they deserved, but the employees weren't in immediate danger by the time they left the store to go and engage them in gun battle.

They got what they deserved, but I wonder if the employees will receive criminal charges.

 

[Pweller]

I think this could be a bit of a gray area. It is my understanding that it is legal for the jewelry store employees to confront the robbers and ask for their jewerly back. If the robbers then say 'heck no' and draw their weapons, then it becomes a case of self-defense for the store employees. I think some of this will come down to whether or not the DA will want to prosecute (which could be partly based on political considerations). I am not a lawyer, but this is my understanding of the situation.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I am all in favor of the employees' actions, but unless Arizona has some very understanding laws I don't think this will go down as a "good shoot." If the article is correct that the employees were able to leave the store by a back door ... they were safe. Most states do not allow the use of deadly force to recover stolen property. Arizona might, I am not familiar with Arizona law and I am generalizing.

 

[Outlaws]

I took from the story that the employees left the rear of the building (alley or back drive), and returned via the front (parking lot). I am sorry to say that I think this will result in criminal charges since the employees do not sound to have been in danger at the time of the shooting.

 

[Car Knocker]

The story makes no mention of what happened in the parking lot that led to gunfire. It's possible the employees went out into the parking lot to get the vehicle description and license number to aid the police in apprehending the criminals, the BGs threatened them with their guns, therefor the employees, under threat of injury or death, defended themselves. Fortunately, they has the foresight to arm themselves before leaving the store.

Without more information, anything we say at this point is merely unsupported speculation.

 

[camslam]

Just another situation where the police can't prevent a crime, they can only investigate what happened.

While we can't condone vigilante actions in our society, I can't help but think more criminals would think twice if they knew that most people could be armed and if they commit a crime, those armed citizens can come after them. Obviously that would open up all kinds of cans of worms, but it would be nice for criminals to be too scared to commit their crimes.

My hope is the same as others, I hope these guys can whether this storm and come out on top.

 

[skwab]

It also depends on what the third party laws are in that state - if the employees left the scene, retrieved their handguns, and came back on the scene with the BGs still pointing their weapons at people, the exchange itself may have taken place in the parking lot, but it may have occurred just outside the store - we just don't know those details.

I hope the employees come out unscathed - but the BGs got what they deserved - when you bring a fireamr into a hostile situation, whether there is intent to use it or not, you better be prepared to suffer grave consequences.

 

[pogostick]

another article

Well this one paints this picture in a different manner. Note the bold portions. I don't know about the laws in AZ but if I were guys from the store I'd be happy to be alive but very worried about legal ramifications. I kinda hope they get a pass like so many real criminals these days, but only time will tell.

Here is the story -
http://kvoa.com/Global/story.asp?S=6740211

PHOENIX -- Two robbery suspects fleeing from a jewelry heist were hospitalized Monday after the store owner and an employee followed them over a block wall and shot them in a Kmart parking lot, police said.

Sgt. Joel Tranter said that the robbery began when a woman accomplice entered Luxor Jewelers in south Phoenix.

"The jewelry store has a security mechanism where they have to lock and unlock the doors as people enter and exit," Tranter said. "As soon as she tried to leave, two additional suspects rushed in. They were each armed when they came in, and they proceeded to rob the store."

As the robbers fled, the owner and his employee snatched a couple of guns and ran after them.

They shot at the robbers in a back alley, then followed them over a 6-foot-tall block wall and exchanged gunfire again next door in the parking lot of a Kmart.

Tranter said two of the robbers were hit. One went down with life threatening injuries in the parking lot.

The woman who first entered the store and the other male robbery suspect took off in a red vehicle, but they were later caught at a hospital. The man had serious injuries. The woman was uninjured, Tranter said.

The robbery suspects have not been identified. Tranter said they'll be charged with "multiple counts" of armed robbery and assault. The store owner and the store employee also have not been identified.

One of the employees was grazed by a bullet. He was treated at the scene, Tranter said.

"We believe they recovered all of the jewelry," he said.

 

[Zoogster]

Keep in mind everything here is speculation. Two articles paint it in completely different light. In the first one it is possible they were confronted trying to get a description of the fleeing people, or went to see what car they got into rather than just let them get away and have little info for police.

In the second one they paint it a bit more vigilante, but that is not necessarily the case. This is AZ after all, not a liberal bastion just yet. Someone attempting to trail a suspect as to not allow them to get away before police arrive on scene, and doing so while armed because they are obviously armed dangerous criminals may be different than running out to punish them with bullets as people assume. While attempting to follow such people, the criminals may have gotten pretty nervous and upset and opened fire a few times attempting to stop the tail. At one of these points the tail may have returned fire causing the injuries described.

At what point does it become illegal to trail a suspect? If the intent is to follow them while armed until police can pick up the pursuit, or just to follow them until they finaly get into a vehicle to see which one they use to give police that lead, and not following to shoot, how is that illegal? Is it illegal to follow someone that shot at you? That held you at gunpoint? Does someone else breaking the law change your rights? I find it interesting that everyone's assumption here is that the intent in following them was to make them pay with bullets.

Obviously the suspects parked over in the Kmart parking lot which according to the story was on the other side of a wall. So to give police a quick lead to help them catch the suspects one would have had to follow them to ID the vehicle parked out of sight. Being armed while trailing obviously armed dangerous individuals is probably a reasonable precaution. If the suspects did not appreciate being trailed and turned around opening fire, then once again the individuals merely trailing would be in danger and could reasonably return fire.

Now granted this is grey area for the same reason everyone here seems to assume they ran out to punish them by shooting them rather than a less vindictive and sinister reason. A prosecution would paint it as exactly that. People pissed off about what happened, grabbing thier guns, running out and shooting at the bad guys making thier escape. That of course is the job of a prosecutor, to paint the events in the worst light possible based on the facts.

The facts are they went out armed and at some point had a shootout with the criminals. That does not mean they went out to have a shootout with the criminals however. It is merely one possibility.

The other is that they went out prepared to defend themselves if necessary, but were only trying to keep the suspects from making a clean getaway by providing details about a vehicle they had no information about yet. To follow them while informing police which direction they fled, what vehicle they got into etc. During which they time the criminals put them once again in a life threatening situation by not just pointing, but shooting at them. Lets not pretend to be psychic here.

 

[Gunpacker]

I'm not sure about AZ, but in FL and some other states, the requirement for ALL shootings including police, is that one must "believe" to be shooting to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or others.
One must remember that there may be witnesses to events, and must tell what led him to "believe" that he was in imminent danger.
Therefore the wise thing to do is get legal advice before making a statement. One must remember that the phrase "I thought he was going to kill me" should be prominent.
IMO, that statement should be true and defensible. I can't imagine just chasing someone down and shooting him for jewelry. If someone has been shot by the fleeing felon, the temptation might be strong. Just remember that the story one presents will determine how justified he was. Only the person shooting can tell his state of mind at the moment of shooting. It is all in the telling.
In Florida, one only has to believe danger to life exists, and so one is not forced to wait to "return" fire.

 

[duckman373]

I know one of the employees, and as usual, the media has the story wrong, The workers fled out the back door, with the gunmen on their tails, one guy tried to close the door on the assailants, when he was shot in the shoulder. Mind you the shoulder is only 6 inches from your head. The shootings took place in back of the store, they didn't chase the robbers over a wall, the one who could still run jumped the wall and left in the getaway car. The one who was shot in the head, was killed while exchanging fire with the employees. The employees tried to leave the store, and were pursued by armed gunmen. So far the police are in agreement that the shootings were justified. Don't believe everything you read in the paper, most media outlets aren't gun friendly. The employees were lucky to live through the whole ordeal.

 

[Caimlas]

Articles like this really make me wish for a resurgence in not only the police policy of saying, "stop, or I'll shoot" but also allow citizens.

Chances are, if those guys had gotten away their goods would've been fenced or moved somewhere else to fence within a couple hours.