Messages
16
Reactions
16
Fleeing from the scene of the crime is after the “commission of the felony.” The clerk was not shot during the actual robbery. Shooting at a fleeing robber is not self defense. Shooting back at someone shooting at you because he’s pi$$ed off you robbed him falls under self-defense.

Lousy situation for sure, but I don’t see the big deal here. Don’t shoot at people who do not pose an imminent danger to you.
 
Messages
252
Reactions
623
Fleeing from the scene of the crime is after the “commission of the felony.” The clerk was not shot during the actual robbery. Shooting at a fleeing robber is not self defense. Shooting back at someone shooting at you because he’s pi$$ed off you robbed him falls under self-defense.

Lousy situation for sure, but I don’t see the big deal here. Don’t shoot at people who do not pose an imminent danger to you.
Nice mental gymnastics there.
 
Messages
939
Reactions
1,684
To paraphrase Andrew Branca, in order to claim self defense there must be 5 elements present - without all 5, the claim cannot be justified:
  • Innocence (not be the initial aggressor)
  • Imminence (facing immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury)
  • Proportionality (of force used to defend against the threat)
  • Avoidance (if possible in the situation; not legally required in all states)
  • Reasonableness - both subjective (what the person knew at the time) and objective (what another reasonable person facing the same circumstances would do)
The "defender" in this case had just committed a violent felony, and was fleeing the scene of that felony when he was fired upon by one of his victims. This compromises the element of innocence, because the "defender" was the initial aggressor.

The big issue here is the inappropriate use of prosecutorial discretion. He could (and should) be charged with homicide because the altercation was directly related to his commission of a violent felony, but the prosecutor has chosen not to pursue it.
 
Last Edited:
Messages
14,617
Reactions
56,579
Fleeing from the scene of the crime is after the “commission of the felony.” The clerk was not shot during the actual robbery. Shooting at a fleeing robber is not self defense. Shooting back at someone shooting at you because he’s pi$$ed off you robbed him falls under self-defense.

Lousy situation for sure, but I don’t see the big deal here. Don’t shoot at people who do not pose an imminent danger to you.
You're right
There are lots of cases where this has happened. Once you start chasing the perp whose trying to flee, in the court's eyes, you've switch from self defense to revenge. The big point that's made in self-defense classes is you shoot to stop the attack. Once the perp is fleeing, the attack has stopped, so to shoot at the fleeing perp switches the game. Now you have become the aggressor. If you want to shoot at a fleeing crook you'd better have rock solid proof that he was an imminent threat to someone else or the DA will have you by the balls.
 
Messages
34
Reactions
40
Given that a fundamental right is currently under scrutiny for "the public good vs the rights of the individual" are the free, law abiding, public truly served by just letting this guy go? What message is a less than brighter individual going to take away from that encounter?
 
Messages
1,169
Reactions
1,482
Antioch is a total $hithole I have been there a handful of times and have cousins who live out in the country near there (byron ca). I'll be honest id never be a store owner in CA, let alone Antioch of all places. Super ghetto. You're asking for it if you do business there.

If he was just a clerk, go work somewhere else.

If he was the store owner, sell and move somewhere else.

I always hear people say they're "stuck" no you're not stuck you're just choosing to live in a war zone
 

Upcoming Events

Latest Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top