Armed robber who was chased will NOT be charged for murder - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For discussion of moral and ethical issues.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15257673
This is kind of a bizarre story.

A robber had just committed a robbery with a gun. While outside trying to run away, the robber was chased by the store clerk and shot in the leg. The robber shot back, killing the store clerk.

The robber is NOT going to be charged with murder. The authorities in California, one hour inland from the San Francisco Bay Area, have decided what the robber did was "self defense".

A California clerk was fatally shot by a robbery suspect, authorities say. The suspect won't be charged with murder. NBC News, David K. Li, Donna Mendell, December 1, 2022
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ca ... -rcna59657

Ronald Jackson Jr., 20, was initially booked on suspicion of armed robbery and homicide in connection to the slaying of James Williams, 36, at a Chevron gas station in Antioch, California.

So it appears the prosecutor's office is sending a message that it's not okay to shoot armed robbers who are trying to get away? Or at least that the robber has a right to shoot back in self defense, if he is in the process of running away and being chased.
And will this concept apply to police chasing the suspect too?

What do you think about this? Is it wacky progressive insanity, or do armed robbers really do have some level of right to self defense, in some situations?

Will Europeans have a different view on this from Americans?
#15257694
This is a borderline case IMHO.

For any place with reliable police force, the right way to do will be to call the police and let them do the job.

I guess Ameeican conservatives will indeed be unhappy because in their ideals the robbed have the rights to make a cheese out of the robber here.

However, the OP should remember that, the accused have the benefit of the doubt in a for judiciary system. Unfortunately the robber gets one here, but fair is fair.

That said, I do think the next-of-kin of the dead should sue this robber for compensation.
#15257695
The store clerk made three mistakes:

1. Carrying a gun. You’re more likely to get shot, since you’re a threat.

2. Shooting at an armed robber. Why risk your life to defend somebody else’s property?

3. Not shooting to kill. The other guy had a gun. Wounding him just means he’ll shoot back at you. And he won’t make the same mistake you just did.
#15257707
Puffer Fish wrote:getting all super Libertarian

The law, as I understand it, is you can only discharge your firearm if any 'reasonable person', undefined, would believe in your situation that he was in imminent danger of death or serious injury. Once the robber ran away, the robber was not a threat, and it wasn't self defence.


:)
#15257708
ingliz wrote:The law, as I understand it, is you can only discharge your firearm if any 'reasonable person', undefined, would believe in your situation that he was in imminent danger of death or serious injury. Once the robber ran away, the robber was not a threat, and it wasn't self defence.

Makes it rather difficult to catch criminals, eh?

What do you think police do when they are chasing someone who is holding a gun and will not stop.
#15257709
Puffer Fish wrote:Makes it rather difficult to catch criminals, eh?

What do you think police do when they are chasing someone who is holding a gun and will not stop.



Regrettably in his defense, ingliz is making the analysis regarding a Joe Average, not a cop.
#15257739
Maine law is harsher against vigilantes than Cali...

You have a right to defend yourself, in your home, only as long as there is a definite threat. Any pursuit can easily land you in legal trouble.

I would also point out that we have one of the very lowest rates of violent crime in the country. Violence begets violence.

Puffy's implied advocacy of vigilante violence is not something I want to personally see in my state.
#15257787
ingliz wrote:Because the store clerk didn't shoot the fellow when he was committing a felony.


:)

The store clerk did both too much and too little at the same time. He did too much in the sense that he shouldn't have shot the guy while he was running away. The store clerk was not under any threat at that time, and shooting the guy was therefore legally unjustifiable. And he did too little, in the sense that he shot to wound the robber, when he should have shot to kill. You can argue that the store clerk was guilty of nothing worse than poor judgement, but in a gunfight poor judgement is what gets you killed.
#15257788
Potemkin wrote:he shot to wound the robber

Not necessarily.

I expect he shot to kill. It could just have been he was a poor shot. Don't forget the sight radius on a subcompact concealed carry weapon is short. It doesn't take much to miss your target, and all that adrenaline flowing doesn't help. A flinch, a poor sight picture, or too much trigger out of a sub-3-inch barrel is enough.


:)
#15257789
ingliz wrote:Not necessarily.

I expect he shot to kill. It could just have been he was a poor shot. Don't forget the sight radius on a subcompact concealed carry weapon is short. It doesn't take much to miss your target, and all that adrenaline flowing doesn't help. A flinch, a poor sight picture, or too much trigger out of a sub-3-inch barrel is enough.


:)

tl;dr: Shooting at an armed robber is an extremely bad idea.

ISIS doing a terrorist attack for money on a Frid[…]

It is true that the Hindu's gave us nothing. But […]

I dont buy it, Why would anyone go for a vacation […]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@JohnRawls No. Your perception of it is not. I g[…]