Murder charges against CC'er dropped

[mljdeckard]

No, he is NOT allowed to use DEADLY force to get his money back.

You are allowed to use deadly force to stop someone from killing you. If a man is threatening to kill you if you don't give him your money, (and it is a VIABLE threat,) you are probably justified in using deadly force. That is SELF-DEFENSE.

You are NOT allowed to shoot someone because they just robbed you. That is REVENGE.

Some states have narrow laws allowing the use of force to take back property that legitimately belongs to you. NONE of them allow deadly force to retrieve property. You can't go to the guy who swindled you or stole your car and tell him to give it back or you will kill him. Call the sheriff, use due process of law. You don't start shooting people.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...There are situations, and cases, where shooting someone in the back is the correct thing to do and they still pose an imminent threat to your safety and welfare. Someone with their back turned to you while they are reaching for a gun is a likely scenario. Another is someone fleeing yet shooting behind them as they flee...

There have also been cases in which it's been a question of reaction time. The assailant presents a threat. It is perceived, the decision is made to fire and the act of firing is begun. In that split second, the assailant turns, but it is too late for the defender to perceive the changed circumstance and not fire.

 

[EmbarkChief]

No, he is NOT allowed to use DEADLY force to get his money back.

You are allowed to use deadly force to stop someone from killing you. If a man is threatening to kill you if you don't give him your money, (and it is a VIABLE threat,) you are probably justified in using deadly force. That is SELF-DEFENSE.

You are NOT allowed to shoot someone because they just robbed you. That is REVENGE.

Some states have narrow laws allowing the use of force to take back property that legitimately belongs to you. NONE of them allow deadly force to retrieve property. You can't go to the guy who swindled you or stole your car and tell him to give it back or you will kill him. Call the sheriff, use due process of law. You don't start shooting people.

That may very well apply for your state. However that is not the case for others.

 

[Warp]

Not always.

There are situations, and cases, where shooting someone in the back is the correct thing to do and they still pose an imminent threat to your safety and welfare. Someone with their back turned to you while they are reaching for a gun is a likely scenario. Another is someone fleeing yet shooting behind them as they flee.

These are just two examples but they do, I hope, help to illustrate that shooting someone in the back is not always murder.

BikerRN

Absolutely correct.

M-Cameron: Sorry pal, but your blanket statement is dead wrong.

 

[Owen Sparks]

How is it revenge to shoot a person who is running off with your stuff?

 

[Warp]

How is it revenge to shoot a person who is running off with your stuff?

Because it makes it sound worse when stated by those with an agenda?

 

[leadcounsel]

The Badguy could get shot in the back as he turns to look to see if the coast is clear for his escape or in furtherance of his crime. Or while he maneuvers around, etc.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Some states have narrow laws allowing the use of force to take back property that legitimately belongs to you. NONE of them allow deadly force to retrieve property

At least one does.

 

[Autolycus]

Originally posted by Warp: Because it makes it sound worse when stated by those with an agenda?

How so? The facts are the facts and I don't see it as revenge. Who cares what someone with an agenda thinks as the fact is that I work hard for my stuff. If you take my property you in essence are taking part of my life away as I had to work for it. That is how I see it. Either way I don't see it as revenge and I don't see the relevance in what anti-gunners think.

 

[mljdeckard]

Joe Horn was no billed because he said in his 911 call; "I am in fear for my life". That was on record. The prosecution had no evidence to the contrary, so he walked.

If you think that you can use deadly force to retrieve property regardless of a threat to your safety, try it and see what happens. I don't care WHAT state you live in.

 

[Diggers]

As far as this shooting goes I think guilt or innocence probably depends on how far away was the robber when he was shot.

If he was 5 feet away from the victim well that is a strong argument for self defense. The robber could of jump back and spun around when he saw the gun come out. As others have said this could of happened very quickly after the victim had made up his mind to draw and fire.

However, if the robber was shot when he was say 20 feet away... well that might be a sticky situation for the shooter to explain.

The problem here is really with the law. It's not fair to the victim of a violent crime to charge them with murder for defending them self in the heat of the moment. There really should be a law on the books that if a victim kills a person in the heat of the moment who was committing a violent felony against them then they justified in doing so. Obviously, hunting them down after the crime is complete doesn't qualify.

Too much can happen too fast in this kind of situation for the law to try to come to some sort of rational and fair decision about whats OK and what isn't.

I'm sure the victim in this story was still afraid for his life when he fired his gun, he just had "a sharp object" put to his neck. Who wouldn't be afraid?

 

[vaupet]

In Belgium, not the most gunfriendly of countries, some years ago, a juweler was not charger although he fired an armed robber who was fleeing in the back.
Judges said he couldnt stop shooting because of al the adrenaline and stress
I suppose most judges have time and intelligence to look at all the angles and rule, better than the internet crowd

 

[Lex Luthier]

What about situational awareness?

I never walk into/ toward a dark area without looking around. I attempt to observe what is on the other side of the glass before walking out of a store, day or night. If I see anyone or anything suspicious in a an area which I need to place myself, I may even stand there and stare straight at the potential threat until they get the message and move.

If we are more careful and smarter about how we move through life, there will be fewer incidents such as this. I also have to ask, why the heck was he cashing a check at fricking Walmart? It is 2011 and we have ATMs all over the place. Writing checks is becoming as old as playing a cassette tape. Just sayin'.

 

[TexasRifleman]

If you think that you can use deadly force to retrieve property regardless of a threat to your safety, try it and see what happens. I don't care WHAT state you live in.

The LAW says you can in some circumstances. Some juries have upheld it, some have not, but the law says very clearly that you can do so in at least one state so your claim that none allow it is incorrect. It's pretty much guaranteed to cost you at least a trial, but there are circumstances where you would prevail.

It's probably a bad idea in just about any circumstance you can imagine, but there are situations where it could be legal. Moral? Different story.

 

[Geckgo]

This did not happen in Tx, we'll worry about the TX matter later with another thread and a direct quote/link from TX law.

New stories are notoriously vague, given.

IF he fired while "suspect" was turning then it is self defence, clear cut. Like Diggers said, might depend on where the body dropped.

IF (as I picture the scenario) "victim" was attacked from behind and restrained with a knife to his throat while his wallet was removed, then the theif turned loose and took off running, the shooter would have needed to make a conscious choice, to 1. turn, 2. draw, 3. fire. By the time he could do this it should have been more than clear that the perp was on the run. As soon as the perp released him, the crime was over with. You want your wallet back at that point, then it's going to involve a leg race or the police, neither very likely.

In scenario #2, the only defense I see is temporary insanity, i.e. shooter could not be expected to make the right decision while under the stress of having had a "sharp object" to his throat moments before.

Scenario #2 also points out the difference between taking the high-road AND legal route of letting the stolen property remain stolen property once the crime is over, and "shooting back" to recover what is yours, regardless of the moral/legal implications.

 

[Remllez]

An armed assailant that turns his back to you to shoot someone else is still an imminent threat, an armed assailant that turns his back to you to pick up a different gun is still an imminent threat, an armed assailant that turns his back on you to take cover from a threat coming from a different direction is still an imminent threat to you. A man that just threatened your life by aiming at your head and pulling the trigger on a jam is still an imminent threat to you.

Moral of the story is (don't be to quick to judge a man that's defending his or another persons life.)

 

[heeler]

These types of threads usually go the same way.
Everyone puts their opinions out including those in the lawyers guild but generally they are going by the law they only know to be fact in THEIR state and not necessarily the state the shooting actually took place in.

 

[TexasRifleman]

This seems to be a pretty detailed writeup on WV laws.

http://www.firearmstruth.com/2011/west-virginia-citizens-defense-league-some-thoughts-on-self-defense-and-the-law-in-west-virginia

 

[jerkface11]

You are in your house and someone is running away blindly firing behind them? Not an Imminent threat as you can stay in cover.

Someone honestly just argued that getting shot at isn't an imminent threat!

 

[12131]

Not always.

There are situations, and cases, where shooting someone in the back is the correct thing to do and they still pose an imminent threat to your safety and welfare. Someone with their back turned to you while they are reaching for a gun is a likely scenario. Another is someone fleeing yet shooting behind them as they flee.

These are just two examples but they do, I hope, help to illustrate that shooting someone in the back is not always murder.

BikerRN

Great and well tought out post.

 

[12131]

Someone honestly just argued that getting shot at isn't an imminent threat!

Unbelievable, isn't it? That was an example of a poorly thought out post.

 

[jerkface11]

Yeah are there ANY states where it isn't legal to shoot back ??

 

[ForumSurfer]

Someone honestly just argued that getting shot at isn't an imminent threat!

That is what happens in court. The situation will get torn down and analyzed to death until something like that happens.

 

[Neverwinter]

How so? The facts are the facts and I don't see it as revenge. Who cares what someone with an agenda thinks as the fact is that I work hard for my stuff. If you take my property you in essence are taking part of my life away as I had to work for it. That is how I see it. Either way I don't see it as revenge and I don't see the relevance in what anti-gunners think.

This is a wholly dishonest interpretation of self-defense for preservation of life. Unless that property is fundamentally vital to the continuation of your life, such as a respirator, the theft is not presenting an imminent threat to your life.

 

[Bubbles]

I've been following this incident fairly closely since it's in my state. Note that the charges have been dropped for the moment and without prejudice so that the prosecutor can continue to investigate the case. The CC'er can still be prosecuted.

I also think the prosecutor is looking at this incident in light of a fairly recent (2009) ruling from the WV Court of Appeals that greatly expanded the legal "defense" that could be used for a self defense claim. The case is WV v Harden.

Also, there is video footage of the incident, and while I haven't seen it, statements made by those who have indicate to me that the incident wasn't necessarily "over" (there had been no cooling off period) between the time of the robbery and the shooting.

Finally, the prosecutor is an elected official and very much a "political animal". The thief has a long history of drug abuse and run-ins with the law, the shooter is a solid, well-known citizen in the community, and that part of WV is becoming more and more known for having drug "issues". He's no doubt looking at the case, the response of the community to the shooting, and thinking that his chances for re-election are somewhere between slim and none if he prosecutes.