Not Hypothetical

[Robspeire]

Bad Shot. Too many variables
Vehicle could have been hijacked and owner in back.....
I had a similar situation years ago & did not shoot.
Some LEO's said I should have. Seasoned investigator said I did right thing
that a hostage or the owner of store could have been in back.

 

[Wise_A]

The shooter stated that he felt his fellow employee's life was in danger due to possibly being ran over with the vehicle or being shot. He clearly stated this in the article.

Straight from every CCW course I've ever seen: it doesn't matter what you say or think, what matters is whether it was reasonable to be in fear, and the reasonableness of your actions in light of that.

But hey, doesn't matter, beeeeeecause--

I totally think he was reckless in how he chose to use deadly force shooting with the highway as a backstop.

Agreed--pretty dumb. I think the danger to all the bystanders in the background, both on the highway and across the street, is far greater. The dude is firing one-handed while running. I'm actually sort of surprised he hit the car at all.

4) The jewelery store owner shot the passenger, not the driver. My impression from the video is it was the passenger that had a hold of the employee and that's the guy that got shot.

I dunno, doesn't really look like there was any time at all for that. Looks like the clerk tried to grab the passenger as the vehicle was pulling away, and got knocked aside.

his also begs the question...……. If the shooter had not been a retired NY detective would they have rushed so quickly to state he probably would not be charged?

If anything, being a retired NY detective means that he had training which should have better-educated him as to the risks of firing at moving vehicles. The reasonable person standard always means "knowing what you knew at the time". So on the one hand, he knows that a vehicle is a deadly weapon, and how it doesn't take very much at all to cause a serious injury.

On the other, I'm pretty sure the NYPD has all sorts of prohibitions against firing on vehicles, and he would have had the concept of "ricochets" and "backdrops" explained to him in-depth.

If anything, I think his former career is a liability in this situation.

 

[tenntex32]

That's my point too. I don't give a damn about the thief; in fact I hope he dies and saves the state money. If this idiot accidentally shot one of my loved ones while "ending the theft of his precious property," I would go after him figuratively with all guns blazing and end up owning his frigging store.

If we're going to what if...…..

What if the clerk hadn't shot and both perps weren't apprehended...……...and what if your loved ones were in the very next store robbed by them and were injured and/or killed.

And what if the clerk from the prior robbery came out on the news and said "I was armed and probably could have legally made an effort to stop or apprehend them, but was still too afraid of the consequences of doing such. And I am a retired NY detective."

You'd be pissed and you know it, and if we're going to "what if", yet again, we need to do so in all directions. But the facts clearly show the shooter did not injure any innocent bystanders...…..nor were the perps free to continue their crime spree elsewhere.

Dale

 

[dougb1946]

Why would a clerk be expected to fight for the owners merchandise? If the owner was concerned, there would be an armed guard watching the store. Most retailers order clerks to not resist and be a good witness. There are mechanical ways to protect cash and high ticket merchandise, cameras and alarms to track the bad guy and call the cops. I worked for a number of retailers over the years and was never expected to fight for merchandise. If the boss don't care, why should I.
There will be legal bills. Fun to pay out of a retail clerks paycheck.

 

[Wise_A]

If we're going to what if...…..

What if the clerk hadn't shot and both perps weren't apprehended...……...and what if your loved ones were in the very next store robbed by them and were injured and/or killed.

Because in one, the owner is responsible, and the consequences are immediate.

In the other, he isn't, and they aren't.

Immediacy being one of the key things that justifies deadly force in most states. If the dude's not being charged, great. He's still an idiot.

 

[tenntex32]

Because in one, the owner is responsible, and the consequences are immediate.

In the other, he isn't, and they aren't.

Immediacy being one of the key things that justifies deadly force in most states. If the dude's not being charged, great. He's still an idiot.

Maybe you should take the trip over to the shop and tell him face to face...….since you are adamant about it. Keep me updated on how that works out for you, but I won't be holding my breath waiting for any additional info from you.

Dale

 

[oink]

Maybe you should take the trip over to the shop and tell him face to face...….since you are adamant about it
Dale

Fortunately I have the common sense not to as it would accomplish nothing but don't think it didn't cross my mind. He's a reckless idiot! I don't imagine he'll have much of value in his name in a year or two but that's another issue. He was just plain reckless in regards to the safety of non-involved persons. An AH as far as I'm concerned. An yeah I would take pleasure in telling him that but I'd imagine he's been told already.

 

[Wise_A]

Maybe you should take the trip over to the shop and tell him face to face...….since you are adamant about it. Keep me updated on how that works out for you, but I won't be holding my breath waiting for any additional info from you.

Dale

You really don't know me, do you?

Besides which, if this guy is such a paragon of self-control and law-abidingness, what could I possibly have to fear?

 

[tenntex32]

You really don't know me, do you?

Besides which, if this guy is such a paragon of self-control and law-abidingness, what could I possibly have to fear?

Yeah...……..I must not know you.

Maybe you should change your handle from "Wise A" to "Bad A". That way I would know who I'm dealing with. Please accept my most humblest of apologies for I truly don't know who you are, and even worse, what you are capable of and I do not want to lose any sleep at night concerning myself about it.

Dale

 

[Tony2much]

Also local to shooting and I've watched the video quite a few times. I've questioned the justification of this shooting from day one. The thing that stands out most to me is there is no mention of the teen having a weapon in any of the articles. No gun?

If someone knows otherwise or has better information, I would appreciate a link to a source. Otherwise, I believe this was an unarmed and fleeing teen shot from behind.

I think we're going to here a lot more about this.

 

[F75gunslinger]

Honestly, if he was in NY he would probably have been charged. He is no longer a police officer, so he isn't "on the job" so to speak. But, IMHO, any bullet that you fire is your responsibility. Shooting at a moving car can go sideways in a number of ways.

As the suspects were fleeing, there was no imminent danger to anyone.Now,IF, the other clerk was fighting with one of them as they got in the car then maybe. But shooting at someone fleeing from you is a good way to get into trouble in my opinion. You can no longer claim that you were in fear for your life.

The reason his accomplice would be charged with murder is that in many places, if a person is involved in a crime where someone is killed then the law says that the person/persons who are committing the crime are at fault for doing so.Regardless of who actually fired the shot. That would involve anyone who was involved in carrying out the crime.

 

[SMSgt]

Also local to shooting and I've watched the video quite a few times. I've questioned the justification of this shooting from day one. The thing that stands out most to me is there is no mention of the teen having a weapon in any of the articles. No gun?

If someone knows otherwise or has better information, I would appreciate a link to a source. Otherwise, I believe this was an unarmed and fleeing teen shot from behind.

I think we're going to here a lot more about this.

The kid told the clerk he would shoot him, thus instilling fear of death or bodily harm. Same as handing a teller a note saying you have a gun, give you the money. The sheriff called it stopping a forcible felony, not self defense.

A later news link:

Unclear if jewelry store employee will be charged for shooting teen

 

[jlrhiner]

Say... you fella's think that jewelry store clerk could use some more ammo?