Messages
192
Reactions
129
🤬 What a bunch of 🐂💩. Now not only can you walk into a retailer and scoop up as much as you can carry without fear of prosecution but one can’t stop perpetrators of a armed robbery who flee and are still a threat to the surrounding community. Just gotta hope that this kind of prosecutorial malfeasance doesn’t spread, though it might be we’re already at the edge of the abyss.
 
Messages
539
Reactions
533
...or, this can also be a good example of a poorly worded law and should be corrected rather than putting
the onus on subjective reasoning of the law enforcers. Ambiguity in codified verbiage leaves the door open
to wishy washy application
 
Messages
837
Reactions
1,584
The law says you can't claim self defense when you yourself initiated the felony. But in another section it says once you have given up the attack and attempted to withdraw the other side losses the ability to claim self defense.
So a fleeing felon who is not shooting at you, or still threatening violence's, [ I would think pointing a gun in your direction] could not just be shot.
Antioch is a bedroom community of San Francisco, So its a good bet their DA is a lib.
 
Messages
17,518
Reactions
41,622
The law says you can't claim self defense when you yourself initiated the felony. But in another section it says once you have given up the attack and attempted to withdraw the other side losses the ability to claim self defense.
So a fleeing felon who is not shooting at you, or still threatening violence's, [ I would think pointing a gun in your direction] could not just be shot.
Antioch is a bedroom community of San Francisco, So its a good bet their DA is a lib.
YEP!!! There is NOTHING wrong with the way the law is written, it was clearly an example of one of the DA's who do this kind of crap for a reason. You can bet that same DA would have zero problems going after the victim if he had lived. Too many of these damn DA's act like their "job" is to protect the scum and go after the law abiding every damn chance they get. 🤬
 
Yes the criminal should be charged with shooting the clerk to what level (murder, manslaughter, or?) I dont know. He was still in the commission of a felony by committing armed robbery, maybe, not sure on CA laws, NY it isnt unless they fire it............stupid I know.
The issue here is that the clerk was no longer in a position to claim self defense as the robber was leaving. The clerk isnt a cop so he should not have chased the robber down and definitely not shot at his rear side while he was fleeing. Even a cop would have an issue shooting a perp in the backside. This is why you dont shoot anywhere other than the chest, never shoot to stop or immobilize, it will bite you in the end.
Hopefully the family of the clerk get a good lawyer and go after the robber in a private/civil suit and depending on outcome go after the D.A. also.

Let the :s0030:begin
 
Unfortunately, I see where "the law" is interpreted to where the act of "self defense" is claimed. It's because life is valued more than property, even when the person claiming self defense initiated the whole incident.
The act of initiating and committing the crime should factor in with great prejudice on any charges the robber is brought up on. Unfortunately, sadly, it won't be. Once the robber decides to retreat, the legal responses diminish greatly. The article even stated that the store clerk might have been charged for shooting, if he wasn't deceased. Good Gawd!
In reality, the punk that did the robbing should be the one in the morgue. Sad it's the other way around
 
Messages
17,518
Reactions
41,622
Unfortunately, I see where "the law" is interpreted to where the act of "self defense" is claimed. It's because life is valued more than property, even when the person claiming self defense initiated the whole incident.
The act of initiating and committing the crime should factor in with great prejudice on any charges the robber is brought up on. Unfortunately, sadly, it won't be. Once the robber decides to retreat, the legal responses diminish greatly. The article even stated that the store clerk might have been charged for shooting, if he wasn't deceased. Good Gawd!
In reality, the punk that did the robbing should be the one in the morgue. Sad it's the other way around
Yes it is sad indeed. The clerk was a fool to chase after him and shoot at him but, many are just at the breaking point with this support of the scum. I have been saying for a while now we are going to see more of this as people lose faith in those who are supposed to enforce laws. I have listened to several around me last while. People holding scum at gun point when told by 911 not to. Many are just fed up and no longer willing to just let the scum walk off to buy more drugs with other peoples property.
 
Messages
253
Reactions
625
I thought it was okay to shoot a fleeing suspect, who had committed a felony, if you had reason to believe that the perpetrator was posing a danger to the community. Oh wait, that's just the double standard applied to the cops.

If the robber was able to return fire and kill the victim, then he was certainly still a threat to the victim and also the community. What a shame.:(
 
Messages
34,736
Reactions
88,588
I thought it was okay to shoot a fleeing suspect, who had committed a felony, if you had reason to believe that the perpetrator was posing a danger to the community. Oh wait, that's just the double standard applied to the cops.

If the robber was able to return fire and kill the victim, then he was certainly still a threat to the victim and also the community. What a shame.:(
That is supposed to be the general rule, civilian or LEO and that is what we were told.

Immediate threat to the victim, or continuing threat to the public at large.

But in practice, that doesn't seem to be what happens after a shooting; LEOs get to shoot unarmed suspects for running away (especially if the LEO can say, with a straight face, that he/she thought the suspect had a gun), civilians need to show immediate and continuing threat to life, and even then they wind up in court in some locales.

At this point in time, it seems to me, all that is needed for a LEO to get away with shooting a civilian, is that the civilian has a gun - whether it is in the civilians hands or not, whether it is being pointed at anyone or not. Just yell "GUN!" and the bullets start to fly. I am lucky, the one time I had a LEO pointing a gun at my head from a few feet away, the OSP officer was restrained enough to not fire - if that had happened today, I would not be typing this (long embarrassing story - suffice to say, the OSP officer was justified to point his gun at me).
 
Messages
8,733
Reactions
14,899
does every state have a law that allows the use of deadly force to prevent the commission of a felony (armed robbery)? What about California?
When does the felony robbery end when the bad guy flees, after they reach a place of safety?

Andrew Branca gave a long discussion on this story, and seems to suggest that the prosecutor could have chose to press murder charges.
Its a long video but I queued it up to his ~2minute summary to cut to the chase.
 

Upcoming Events

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top