Where Does Self Defense End? Killer of Robber Convicted of Murder

[mpw]

Murder.
If the kid was down on the floor he is no longer a threat to the store clerk...

Really? A person ceases to be a threat just because they're no longer standing?

...It annoys me to see people like this man trying to hide behind self defense...

Is self defence not a valid defence in the US? I think it's a fundamental right of an accused person to enter any defence that they honestly believe valid. If, based on the evidence here, you are annoyed by any plea, I sincerely hope you never serve on a jury!

...he could have handcuffed him or tied his hands and legs. Then call the cops.

He may have been able to suppress some threats as you describe, but not knowing what threat he believed he faced, it may be argued that his actions were justified.
As for any reliance on the cops, well I'm not sure I would always trust the police, and certainly not enough to put my life, or that of my loved ones, directly in their hands.

...The owner was outside and safe... ...by walking back in to that store he had only one reason to and that was to finish off that person...

I disagree with your certainty; by walking back into the store, he may have been concerned with the safety of the other staff members, and actions could therefore be validated as 'self defence' IMO.

...Cops will even tell you if you can get out do not go back in to a dangerous situation.

Cops will tell you a lot of things, I've learnt not to believe a lot of it, and think for myself... I'm better at it than most police I've ever met.

 

[A.Nonymous]

Really? A person ceases to be a threat just because they're no longer standing?

They cease to be a threat when they're disabled and pose no further threat. If this was a police officer who did this, there would be national outrage and no one would make the argument that it was justified.

Is self defence not a valid defence in the US? I think it's a fundamental right of an accused person to enter any defence that they honestly believe valid. If, based on the evidence here, you are annoyed by any plea, I sincerely hope you never serve on a jury!

It's a perfectly valid defense. It just doesn't apply here. You can't claim a guy that is laying on the ground on the other side of a counter is a threat. The store owner can't even see him. How does he perceive the threat? Yet he walks around to the other side of the counter and shoots the guy.

He may have been able to suppress some threats as you describe, but not knowing what threat he believed he faced, it may be argued that his actions were justified.
As for any reliance on the cops, well I'm not sure I would always trust the police, and certainly not enough to put my life, or that of my loved ones, directly in their hands.

How? If I walk up to you and am clearly unarmed and threaten to kill you and rape your wife, you are not justified in pulling a gun and shooting me. If you do so, you are going to jail, not me. Doesn't matter if I have a long history of violence. If I'm unarmed and you shoot me for making verbal threats you're going to jail.

I disagree with your certainty; by walking back into the store, he may have been concerned with the safety of the other staff members, and actions could therefore be validated as 'self defence' IMO.

Completely and totally incorrect. Again, the guy was on the ground on the other side of a counter. Even if he was 100% certain that the guy would get up, grab a gun and shoot someone, he can't claim self defense just because the guy COULD have posed a threat. Self defense works when the other guy IS posing a threat, not when the guy COULD.

 

[mpw]

They cease to be a threat when they're disabled and pose no further threat...

Yes, this is the point I was making.

...If this was a police officer who did this, there would be national outrage and no one would make the argument that it was justified...

National outrage, right, wrong and justice are not necessarily equal.

...It just doesn't apply here. You can't claim a guy that is laying on the ground on the other side of a counter is a threat. The store owner can't even see him. How does he perceive the threat?...

I can. I could perceive a threat even without seeing it; do you claim a blind person can not feel threatened? If I break into your house, do I cease to be a threat if I turn the light out on entering your child's bedroom?
e not necessarily equal.

...How?...

"you shoulda killed me with that first shot man, 'cause I'm calling my guys, and they're gonna come for me, and kill you, your staff and then your family once they know who you are. Show your face and I'll kill you now with my spare gun!"

With the knowledge that this person has carried out an armed robbery, and that he doesn't act alone, and without certainty as to whether he is armed, the proximity of his reinforcements, and the proximity of the police(who are unaware of the unfolding situation at this time) I could argue this is a clear and present threat to the safety of innocents.

How about something like that?

...Completely and totally incorrect...

No. You're wrong, and you clearly don't understand how a plea for self defence is tested under law.

The fact that you're so wrong, yet still talk of 'completely and totally' in such certain terms, simply makes me return to my earlier statement; and hope you're never chosen to serve on a jury!

 

[nlsme]

Really? A person ceases to be a threat just because they're no longer standing?

Is self defence not a valid defence in the US? I think it's a fundamental right of an accused person to enter any defence that they honestly believe valid. If, based on the evidence here, you are annoyed by any plea, I sincerely hope you never serve on a jury!

He may have been able to suppress some threats as you describe, but not knowing what threat he believed he faced, it may be argued that his actions were justified.
As for any reliance on the cops, well I'm not sure I would always trust the police, and certainly not enough to put my life, or that of my loved ones, directly in their hands.


I disagree with your certainty; by walking back into the store, he may have been concerned with the safety of the other staff members, and actions could therefore be validated as 'self defence' IMO.

Cops will tell you a lot of things, I've learnt not to believe a lot of it, and think for myself... I'm better at it than most police I've ever met.

So a threat is reason enough to take someones life? And the kid ceased to be a threat, because the guy had walked out of the store. Sorry, but someone in a differant building is no longer an immediate threat. It does not matter what the cops tell you, it is a matter of what the law tells you.

 

[mpw]

So a threat is reason enough to take someones life?...

Yes, under some circumstances.

...And the kid ceased to be a threat, because the guy had walked out of the store. Sorry, but someone in a differant building is no longer an immediate threat...

The armed attacker(who may have turned out to be a 'kid'), only ceased to be an immediate threat(in so much as 'line-of-sight') to the store owner, but the video clearly shows other staff/customers in the store, to who the store owner may have had/felt a responsibility; that responsibility drew him back into the store, back into the LOS, and ultimately back under any threat perceived from his assailant.

 

[Knewz]

So a threat is reason enough to take someones life?

Yes, under some circumstances.

No, not legally anyways. It is enough to have them arrested and charged but verbal, written, implied threats are never justified in court as a reason to take another life. It can't be circumstantial because there really are no different levels of threats against one's life, so it would be impossible to try to distinguish which threats retalliations are acceptable to use deadly force and which aren't.

 

[RedneckDroid]

Nope. Murder, 10 to 20, time served and possibility of parole after 5.

That would be my ruling and I am going very light because of the possibility he felt responsible for others safety and the possibility of verbal threats from the downed attacker. Its still murder though, the stare before the gun shots was cold-blooded.

 

[A.Nonymous]

National outrage, right, wrong and justice are not necessarily equal.

Red herring. It's still wrong. If this was a cop who shot this guy there would be no legal excuse. The cop would go to jail. No two questions about it.

I can. I could perceive a threat even without seeing it; do you claim a blind person can not feel threatened? If I break into your house, do I cease to be a threat if I turn the light out on entering your child's bedroom?
e not necessarily equal.

Big difference. This guy is down on the ground on the other side of the counter and is wounded to boot. If he's standing on the other side, then you've got an argument. If I have a gun or you think I do and you shoot me, that's justified. If you shoot me, I drop my gun and stagger around to the other side of a wall and you walk around the wall, stand over my bleeding body and shoot me in the head, that is murder. What the store owner here did was no different. Even if the guy on the ground was reaching for a weapon, the store owner can't see that. There is no way for the store owner to even perceive a threat and every reason for him to think the guy was not a threat.

"you shoulda killed me with that first shot man, 'cause I'm calling my guys, and they're gonna come for me, and kill you, your staff and then your family once they know who you are. Show your face and I'll kill you now with my spare gun!"

With the knowledge that this person has carried out an armed robbery, and that he doesn't act alone, and without certainty as to whether he is armed, the proximity of his reinforcements, and the proximity of the police(who are unaware of the unfolding situation at this time) I could argue this is a clear and present threat to the safety of innocents.

How about something like that?

No, you can't argue that when the guy is on the ground wounded and bleeding. There is no way that this is a clear and present threat. This guy may be a future threat for sure. I'll buy that. You can't make a self defense case based on a future threat.

Again, if I'm unarmed and I threaten your life, you are not justified in pulling a gun and shooting me. Doesn't matter what our history is. I might have a history of shooting at you in the past and trying to kill you. If I am clearly unarmed, you cannot shoot me for threatening to shoot you again in the future.

No. You're wrong, and you clearly don't understand how a plea for self defence is tested under law.

It's tested based on legal provocation. You basically have to claim that if you don't use self-defense that someone is going to be seriously injured or killed. More than that, you have to be able to argue that the threat is fairly immediate, not just at some undetermined point in the future. Someone threatening to kill you at some point in the future is not a justification for self defense. If it were, Obama would legally be able to hunt down and execute anyone who threatens him based on those grounds.

The fact that you're so wrong, yet still talk of 'completely and totally' in such certain terms, simply makes me return to my earlier statement; and hope you're never chosen to serve on a jury!

I've actually served on a jury before. If I was on this guys jury, knowing what I currently know about the case, I would've voted to convict him of 1st degree murder. There's no realistic way to justify what he did.

 

[Dark Jedi]

Yes, this is the point I was making.

National outrage, right, wrong and justice are not necessarily equal.

I can. I could perceive a threat even without seeing it; do you claim a blind person can not feel threatened? If I break into your house, do I cease to be a threat if I turn the light out on entering your child's bedroom?
e not necessarily equal.

"you shoulda killed me with that first shot man, 'cause I'm calling my guys, and they're gonna come for me, and kill you, your staff and then your family once they know who you are. Show your face and I'll kill you now with my spare gun!"

With the knowledge that this person has carried out an armed robbery, and that he doesn't act alone, and without certainty as to whether he is armed, the proximity of his reinforcements, and the proximity of the police(who are unaware of the unfolding situation at this time) I could argue this is a clear and present threat to the safety of innocents.

How about something like that?

No. You're wrong, and you clearly don't understand how a plea for self defence is tested under law.

The fact that you're so wrong, yet still talk of 'completely and totally' in such certain terms, simply makes me return to my earlier statement; and hope you're never chosen to serve on a jury!

You have the same chance of his boys coming after you with him dead. There's a name for your justice and its called being a vigilante. If the store clerk wanted the kid dead. Then he should of aimed better.

You can't argue clear and present threat as it sounds like this kid couldn't pose a threat to others. As he was still laying on the ground. If he was ablee to he would of ran. Go talk to a trial lawyer and he will tell you that your defense is weak and you will be getting a guilty verdict.

 

[log1c]

I can not view the video at work, but after reading what this video is about and all everyone's comments, I can say that it was self-defense turned to murder.

What did the witnesses say? Did they all believe that the man was trying to protect them from the robbers or?

 

[mpw]

...What did the witnesses say?...

Oh log1c, what sweet naivety! Haven't you read some of the earlier posts? You don't need the full facts to brand the man a murderer!

 

[mpw]

...there really are no different levels of threats against one's life...

"I'm gonna kill you!" Shouted by a grumpy elderly man, at kids running away after ringing a door bell.

"I'm gonna kill you!" Shouted by an armed man, during a robbery, at somebody who he is in a gun fight with.


Oh yeah! clearly absolutely on the same level of perceived threat

 

[mpw]

...No two questions about it...

I disagree; I would still ask relevant questions before conviction.

...There is no way for the store owner to even perceive a threat and every reason for him to think the guy was not a threat...

You're making assumptions; from the evidence of that video you can't possible state with such certainty what could of been perceived as it happened, or what the store owner was thinking.

...No, you can't argue that when the guy is on the ground wounded and bleeding. There is no way that this is a clear and present threat. This guy may be a future threat for sure. I'll buy that. You can't make a self defense case based on a future threat...

Utter rubbish! I can't make a hypothetic argument, yet you can make statements of fact based on a video?!

...Again, if I'm unarmed and I threaten your life, you are not justified in pulling a gun and shooting me...

if there's a reasonable belief that you are armed, and are a threat it matters not whether you actual aren't armed. I'm not arguing anything about a separate future event, I'm arguing about an ongoing situation, and how it's perceived as it happens.

...It's tested based on legal provocation. You basically have to claim that if you don't use self-defense that someone is going to be seriously injured or killed...

Right, now go back and re-read what you posted earlier, and if you can't see why your wrong and should come back to admit it, then I don't see there's any point in continuing this discussion.

...If I was on this guys jury, knowing what I currently know about the case, I would've voted to convict him of 1st degree murder. There's no realistic way to justify what he did.

And I therefore stand by my earlier statement that I hope you don't serve again.

 

[Joe Dirt]

I'm all for shooting/killing scum bags, but self defense stops when the threat does. From the video unless the robber is reaching for something we can't see, then its not self defense. That being said I think he would have walked in Texas. If he killed him with his fiirst shot or was smart enough to delete the video he would have walked in his home state.

Also stop calling the dead scum bag a "kid". He stopped being a kid when he made the choice to rob someone.

 

[A.Nonymous]

"I'm gonna kill you!" Shouted by a grumpy elderly man, at kids running away after ringing a door bell.

"I'm gonna kill you!" Shouted by an armed man, during a robbery, at somebody who he is in a gun fight with.


Oh yeah! clearly absolutely on the same level of perceived threat

Except the store owner was not in a gunfight with the guy at the time. He shot the kid (perfectly justified), left the store, came back in, walked right by the kid who was laying on the ground incapacitated and then came back and shot him again. That's when it became murder. Shooting the kid again was not justified.

Can you argue that there would be a serious risk of immediate loss of life if he hadn't shot the kid a second time? No. Can you argue that there was a serious risk of serious injury if he hadn't shot the kid a second time? No. Can you argue that someone else would've faced immediate loss of life or serious injury if he had not acted? No you can't. So the self-defense argument falls apart completely.

 

[nlsme]

Oh log1c, what sweet naivety! Haven't you read some of the earlier posts? You don't need the full facts to brand the man a murderer!

I would say the fact he was CONVICTED of murder is enough to brand the man a murderer.

 

[nlsme]

I'm all for shooting/killing scum bags, but self defense stops when the threat does. From the video unless the robber is reaching for something we can't see, then its not self defense. That being said I think he would have walked in Texas. If he killed him with his fiirst shot or was smart enough to delete the video he would have walked in his home state.

Also stop calling the dead scum bag a "kid". He stopped being a kid when he made the choice to rob someone.

How about juvenile?

 

[matttye]

I don't know if I would call it first degree murder, but it's definitely murder.

Can it really be premeditated? He didn't exactly know two punks would charge into his shop with a gun.

2nd degree maybe.

Then again I'm from the UK, we have manslaughter and murder not different degrees, so perhaps I'm not the most qualified to comment

 

[ElasticNinja]

I would reckon this would get murder in a British Isles jurisdiction as well...

 

[matttye]

I would reckon this would get murder in a British Isles jurisdiction as well...

It would.. you can't argue you didn't intend to kill someone when you shoot them multiple times while they're lying on the floor defenceless!

Premeditated is a bit extreme though... premeditated indicates that he plotted and planned the whole thing.

 

[nlsme]

It would.. you can't argue you didn't intend to kill someone when you shoot them multiple times while they're lying on the floor defenceless!

Premeditated is a bit extreme though... premeditated indicates that he plotted and planned the whole thing.

I would say he plotted and planned from the time he walked back into the store, retrieved a second gun, walked back over and shot him 5 more times.

 

[A.Nonymous]

I don't know if I would call it first degree murder, but it's definitely murder.

Can it really be premeditated? He didn't exactly know two punks would charge into his shop with a gun.

2nd degree maybe.

Then again I'm from the UK, we have manslaughter and murder not different degrees, so perhaps I'm not the most qualified to comment

Premeditation (legally speaking) doesn't have to take days. If we get in an argument and I walk into another room and retrieve a gun and come back and shoot you, that's premeditation. Technically speaking, me unlocking a drawer, pulling out a gun and shooting you would qualify as premeditation as well. The argument is that I considered shooting you, thought out what it would take to shoot you and did it. I didn't just react and shoot you. If I reached into an unlocked drawer, that might qualify as well, but if I just grabbed a gun laying on a table between us, maybe not so much as I could claim it was a heat of the moment thing. It's kind of a fuzzy line sometimes.

In this case, the line is not fuzzy at all. The guy walked by his victim, retrieved a gun from somewhere else in the store, returned to his victim and executed him. It's clearly premeditated.

 

[noah way]

I would say he plotted and planned from the time he walked back into the store, retrieved a second gun, walked back over and shot him 5 more times.

5 Times? He was either a really lousy shot or he was really pissed off.

Bullet Control

 

[A.Nonymous]

5 Times? He was either a really lousy shot or he was really pissed off.

Bullet Control

Yes your honor. I stabbed him 27 times in self defense.

 

[Dark Jedi]

I don't know if I would call it first degree murder, but it's definitely murder.

Can it really be premeditated? He didn't exactly know two punks would charge into his shop with a gun.

2nd degree maybe.

Then again I'm from the UK, we have manslaughter and murder not different degrees, so perhaps I'm not the most qualified to comment

Look at it this way. It can.be argued that when the store owner while walking back in was already thinking I couldn't get his buddy so I will finish the one in the store off. As he went past the kid got his second gun and shot him multiple times execution style.

In the end murder is still murder.