AP: Self Defense laws mean the streets will run with blood

Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
4,728
Likes
348
Location
In the Great Smoky Mountains
Feedback: 31 / 0 / 0
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CASTLE_DOCTRINE_SHOOTINGS?SITE=FLTAM&SECTION=US

Dec 5, 7:05 AM EST

AP Enterprise: Deaths loom over self-defense laws

By SHELIA BYRD
Associated Press Writer

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) -- A convenience store clerk chased down a man and shot him dead over a case of beer this summer and was charged with murder. A week later, a clerk at another Jackson convenience store followed and fatally shot a man he said tried to rob him, and authorities let him go without charges.

Police say the robber in the second case was armed, while the man accused of stealing beer was not.

Just the same, the legal plights of the two clerks highlight the uncertain impact of National Rifle Association-backed laws sweeping the nation that make it easier to justify shooting in self-defense.

In 2006, Mississippi adopted its version of the so-called castle doctrine, which lifts requirements that individuals first try to flee before using deadly force to counter a threat in their homes, vehicles or, in Mississippi's case, at work.

Gun rights advocates who have helped pass the law in 23 states since 2003 say it removes an unfair legal penalty for people exercising a constitutional right in a life-or-death emergency, though some police and prosecutors are skeptical of self-defense claims under the law.

An Associated Press review found a growing number of cases but no clear trend yet in how the law is applied or how cases will be resolved in court.

All a defendant has to do is establish a threat, and usually the other witness is dead. That shifts the burden to prosecutors and police investigators, who have to gather evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that deadly force wasn't justified, according to a report released this summer by the National District Attorneys Association.

"It's very difficult to prove a negative," said Steven Jansen, president of the NDAA. "It might be a little too early to get the overall effect through the court process because we're just seeing the cases enter the court and finding out how the judges are going to rule."

Sarbrinder Pannu, the first clerk, alleged that James Hawthorne grabbed beer from a cooler and left without paying for it. Police Lt. Jeffery Scott said Pannu followed Hawthorne outside the store and shot him twice.

Surinder Singh, president of the Jackson Indian Storeowners Association and a spokesman for Pannu, said Mississippi's law gives you the right to protect your property.

"For them, it's a case of beer. For us, it's our property," Singh said. "That person didn't have respect for his life. He put his life against one case of beer."

Police and prosecutors disagreed and charged Pannu with murder and shooting into an occupied vehicle. Pannu has not entered a plea and has declined to be interviewed.

About a week after Hawthorne was killed, a clerk at another Jackson convenience store chased and fatally shot a clown mask-wearing robber outside the store after he stole cash from the register. The clerk wasn't charged.

Police didn't release the clerk's name because he wasn't charged. As with Hawthorne's shooting, the case will be presented to a grand jury, though police said the second clerk was justified because he felt a clear and present danger.

"The first thing about it is that you want to fairly apply the law," said Scott, who helped investigate both shootings and pointed out that the second robber was armed. "The problem is that there's an exception to every rule."

Castle doctrine laws drew national attention when Joe Horn of Pasadena, Texas, shot and killed two men in November 2007 after he saw them crawling out of the windows of a neighbor's house, carrying bags of the neighbor's possessions. Horn claimed the shooting was justified by Texas' law, and a grand jury declined to indict him.

Cases this year have included a man in San Antonio who shot and killed an intruder who climbed through his bedroom window and a Lexington, Ky., man who shot through his house's front door, killing a man who had been beating on it. No charges were filed in either case.

A woman in Missouri, which enacted its castle doctrine last year, could still face charges for shooting her former boyfriend after he came through the window of her home. A coroner's jury in Adair County ruled that Jackie Gleason committed a felony when she killed Rogelio Johnson in May. Prosecutors said the jury might not have understood the law and have asked the state attorney general to review whether to file formal charges.

The law's rapid rollout across nearly half the nation is largely the result of lobbying by the NRA. Most of the state laws, including Mississippi's, are patterned after Florida's.

Michael Edmondson, who works in the state attorney's office in Palm Beach County, said castle-doctrine claims have increased since the law took effect three years ago.

"You would rarely see a case prior to the change of the statute here in Florida," Edmondson said. "I can recollect a half dozen cases in the last year or so. Some successful. Some not."

Andrew Arulanandam, director of public affairs for the NRA, dismissed concerns about the law being misused or misinterpreted, saying all cases are reviewed by law enforcement authorities.

The laws have become popular in a country that's grown increasingly anxious, said Mat Heck, prosecuting attorney for Montgomery County in Ohio, where a castle doctrine law went into effect in September.

"There really is a change in perception of public safety after 9/11," Heck said. "Citizens are just anxious. They fear attacks, not only from the terrorists abroad, but from residents here in our own country."

A lack of confidence in the justice system and the perception that defendants' rights overshadow victims' are other reasons cited in the NDAA report.

Heck said his state's law pertains to a person's home and car, and is only applied when someone has unlawfully entered.

"We tried to make it somewhat restrictive so it wasn't like the old wild, wild West," Heck said.

Pannu is free on $50,000 bond and has returned to work at the store, where jugs of candy clutter the cashier's counter and pictures of Pannu standing with $1,000 winners of scratch-off games are posted on the bulletproof barrier that separated him from Hawthorne on Aug. 17.

"The real debate is 'Can you kill a man for shoplifting?'" said Dennis Sweet, a Jackson attorney representing Hawthorne's family in a lawsuit against Pannu and A&H Food Mart.

"The guy was in his truck leaving," Sweet said. "He posed no danger."

© 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy.
 
Love how they miscatagorize the Horn case. Horn claimed one of the men came running at him and THAT'S why he shot. This makes it sound like he picked them off as they crawled out of the basement window.
 
the only blood that will be running down the streets is the blood of would be murders from there penitential victims fighting back!!.this article was written by a spineless woman that would rather see a murderers victim dead and the murderer alive.
 
I don't see how reducing the criminal population could possibly be a bad thing.
Of course the cops don't like it, because if it weren't for criminals, they'd be out of a job. [smile]
 
..."That person didn't have respect for his life. He put his life against one case of beer...."
This might become my new tagline.

What amazing clarity. He puts the blame squarely on the person who deserves it; and all of it. Had the dead punk not chosen to steal from the shop, he would still be alive, regardless of what we think about the clerk.

The clerk had this in mind:
"If someone tries to steal a case of beer, I am going to shoot him."

The dead punk had this in mind:
"I am going to try to steal a case of beer."

Here's the resultant syllogism:
A: If the dead punk tries to steal a case of beer from this shop, then the clerk will shoot him;
B: If the dead punk does not try to steal a case of beer from this shop, then the clerk will not shoot him.

Which boils down to:
If and only if the dead punk tries to steal a case of beer from this shop, then the clerk will shoot him.

The dead punk tried to steal a case of beer from the shop.

The clerk's policy might be too harsh, but it was the dead punk who attempted to defy cause-and-effect. He made a really bad bet; the chance to not be shot, for the chance at free beer.

He lost.
 
Cases this year have included a man in San Antonio who shot and killed an intruder who climbed through his bedroom window and...
...[snip]. No charges were filed in either case.

A woman in Missouri, which enacted its castle doctrine last year, could still face charges for shooting her former boyfriend after he came through the window of her home. A coroner's jury in Adair County ruled that Jackie Gleason committed a felony when she killed Rogelio Johnson in May. Prosecutors said the jury might not have understood the law and have asked the state attorney general to review whether to file formal charges.

Gotta love how they bury these two...
 
This might become my new tagline.

What amazing clarity. He puts the blame squarely on the person who deserves it; and all of it. Had the dead punk not chosen to steal from the shop, he would still be alive, regardless of what we think about the clerk.

The clerk had this in mind:
"If someone tries to steal a case of beer, I am going to shoot him."

The dead punk had this in mind:
"I am going to try to steal a case of beer."

Here's the resultant syllogism:
A: If the dead punk tries to steal a case of beer from this shop, then the clerk will shoot him;
B: If the dead punk does not try to steal a case of beer from this shop, then the clerk will not shoot him.

Which boils down to:
If and only if the dead punk tries to steal a case of beer from this shop, then the clerk will shoot him.

The dead punk tried to steal a case of beer from the shop.

The clerk's policy might be too harsh, but it was the dead punk who attempted to defy cause-and-effect. He made a really bad bet; the chance to not be shot, for the chance at free beer.

He lost.


I think that may be a slippery slope way of using logic, though, as evidenced below:

The husband had this in mind:
"If someone tries to insult my wife, I am going to shoot him."

The drunk frat boy had this in mind:
"I am going to tell that woman she is ugly if she won't go on a date with me."

Here's the resultant syllogism:
A: If the frat boy insults the wife, the husband will shoot him
B: If the frat boy does not insult the wife, then the husband will not shoot him.

Which boils down to:
If and only if the frat boy tries to insult the wife, then the husband will shoot him.


The argument isnt over whether frat boy caused the husband to shoot. Thats obvious.

Its over whether the husband should have the right to shoot an unarmed frat boy who just wanted a date.
 
People shooting criminals? Criminals paying the price for stealing/robbing/raping?

There isn't even a shift off of the criminal acts, it just blatantly makes the person defending themselves as 'the actual criminal' completely absolving the person who started the process in the first place.
 
I think that may be a slippery slope way of using logic, though, as evidenced below:

The husband had this in mind:
"If someone tries to insult my wife, I am going to shoot him."

The drunk frat boy had this in mind:
"I am going to tell that woman she is ugly if she won't go on a date with me."

Here's the resultant syllogism:
A: If the frat boy insults the wife, the husband will shoot him
B: If the frat boy does not insult the wife, then the husband will not shoot him.

Which boils down to:
If and only if the frat boy tries to insult the wife, then the husband will shoot him.


The argument isnt over whether frat boy caused the husband to shoot. Thats obvious.

Its over whether the husband should have the right to shoot an unarmed frat boy who just wanted a date.
I did not make this a moral or a legal case; I was not claiming that it vindicates or condemns anyone; I only showed that it was cause-and-effect. People cannot ignore cause-and-effect and expect to succeed in life; or even have one for too long. That's why I liked the quote in the article, because it was clear fact without any distractions - the dead punk (smart or stupid, wrong or right) decided to wager his life for free beer and lost.
 
People shooting criminals? Criminals paying the price for stealing/robbing/raping?

There isn't even a shift off of the criminal acts, it just blatantly makes the person defending themselves as 'the actual criminal' completely absolving the person who started the process in the first place.
Sheeple are scared shitless by free men willing to act with rational aggression. They prefer State agents with virtual immunity to act with aggression (rational or not).
 
I did not make this a moral or a legal case; I was not claiming that it vindicates or condemns anyone; I only showed that it was cause-and-effect. People cannot ignore cause-and-effect and expect to succeed in life; or even have one for too long. That's why I liked the quote in the article, because it was clear fact without any distractions - the dead punk (smart or stupid, wrong or right) decided to wager his life for free beer and lost.

I just personally think anyone who shoots an unarmed feeling person who stole some beer is CREATING an effect which is not proportional to the cause. If I look at someone funny and they whip out a knife and stab me, are you saying that I wagered my life against my decision to smirk at their mohawk?
 
I just personally think anyone who shoots an unarmed feeling (fleeing??) person who stole some beer is CREATING an effect which is not proportional to the cause. If I look at someone funny and they whip out a knife and stab me, are you saying that I wagered my life against my decision to smirk at their mohawk?

Exactly, ideal justice is punishment equal to the crime. We wouldn't advocate executing petty thieves, why put up with self appointed executioners.
But the real issue here is he didn't shoot him in the store, he chased after him and gunned him down. Defense is exactly that, defense and not an offense in disguise. There is far more crap in that article that should be pissing people off like how this case is being compared as equivalent to other far more worthy self defense cases where there is little or no question as to use of force yet they are being prosecuted.
 
I just personally think anyone who shoots an unarmed feeling person who stole some beer is CREATING an effect which is not proportional to the cause. If I look at someone funny and they whip out a knife and stab me, are you saying that I wagered my life against my decision to smirk at their mohawk?
Of course I am. Just because you don't know the cause-and-effect in play doesn't mean that it isn't real. I would suggest not smirking at mohawks if you aren't sure whether you're wagering your life - would you disagree?

My point is tautological; the dead punk was obviously risking his life for the chance at free beer, even though he probably did not recognize it. He was wrong, and he's dead because of it. I never said that what the clerk did was OK; I make no value statement whatever; I am only stating the facts that explain what occurred: The dead punk risked his life for the chance of free beer. This is important, because until the general population gets their heads out of their asses about cause-and-effect, their only response to this type of event is to enact more and more life-denying, rights-stripping laws against the rest of us.

I guess I could just simplify this whole line of thought with the Gumpian aphorism: Stupid is as stupid does.

Don't be stupid, and you'll minimize your chances of getting killed.
 
Of course I am. Just because you don't know the cause-and-effect in play doesn't mean that it isn't real. I would suggest not smirking at mohawks if you aren't sure whether you're wagering your life - would you disagree?

My point is tautological; the dead punk was obviously risking his life for the chance at free beer, even though he probably did not recognize it. He was wrong, and he's dead because of it. I never said that what the clerk did was OK; I make no value statement whatever; I am only stating the facts that explain what occurred: The dead punk risked his life for the chance of free beer. This is important, because until the general population gets their heads out of their asses about cause-and-effect, their only response to this type of event is to enact more and more life-denying, rights-stripping laws against the rest of us.

I guess I could just simplify this whole line of thought with the Gumpian aphorism: Stupid is as stupid does.

Don't be stupid, and you'll minimize your chances of getting killed.

I still think this is a pointless way of thinking about things. By your line of reasoning, if you go for a walk and a person snipes you from 500 yards away for no reason, the cause of your death is that you weighed your life against the risk of walking in public and the effect is you got killed.

Blindly observing cause and effect is a pointless exercise. Saying the cause of dying in a Tsunami is that you were born in a place hit by a Tsunami is a useless exercise.
 
All a defendant has to do is establish a threat, and usually the other witness is dead. That shifts the burden to prosecutors and police investigators, who have to gather evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that deadly force wasn't justified, according to a report released this summer by the National District Attorneys Association.

Ah. Now it makes perfect sense. Of course the laws need to be setup to make sure we dont burden the police and prosecutors with having to work any harder. Shift the burden on the victim, ah sorry....defendant, to prove their innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.

WTF. [thinking]
 
Those aren't examples of "self-defense". More like examples of "vengeful employee".

Agreed.

Cause: Store owner wants to be judge, jury, and executioner
Effect: Petty thief receives death sentence for grabbing a case of beer and running away.

I hate thieves as much as anyone, but have serious questions about anyone who would take another human's life over a case of beer without being threatened in the process.
 
...I hate thieves as much as anyone, but have serious questions about anyone who would take another human's life over a case of beer without being threatened in the process.
As do I. But more importantly I have serious questions about accepting threats to liberty because someone decided to steal beer.
 
The whole "streets will run with blood" nonsense was used by Handgun Control Inc, the Bradys, the Clinton regime, Rudy Giuliani and other big time hoplophobes when the CCW laws started taking flight in the 1980s and 1990s.

And it didn't happen.

They're starting up again, probably emboldened by His Holiness' election win on November 4.

Same scare-tactic was used effectively for the college-campus carry anti-campaign.
 
Sheeple are scared shitless by free men willing to act with rational aggression. They prefer State agents with virtual immunity to act with aggression (rational or not).

Yes they are.

Back in my younger days I talked my way out of a few situations by doing the following.

General scenario:

Perpetrator does something stupid, blames me, is obviously looking for a fight of some sort - verbal and/or physical.

Perpetrator acting in a violent way and very agitated: "You are an a**h***, eff you - I am going to do this and that to you, etc. etc....."

Me: " Look - assh*&e, you did this and you did that and then you really screwed yourself by doing this " (describing moron's actions in exact detail to him - since he doesn't seem to remember)

Perpetrator: " eff you , blah blah blah" (random assorted swear words)

Me: " Look jackass - you screwed up, this incident is entirely YOUR fault. If you choose to pursue this any further I am going to beat you until you are dead. So it's your choice - turn around and walk away and cut your losses - or suffer even further for your own stupidity - YOUR CHOICE."


Handling the incidents like that never failed to make the other person turn around and walk away - not once. I do realize I may have been lucky - but there seems to be a certain advantage that is gained in reminding a person of their own stupidity - and never making mention of reporting them to the police - but telling them that they are about to receive a beating instead.
 
Sheeple are scared shitless by free men willing to act with rational aggression. They prefer State agents with virtual immunity to act with aggression (rational or not).

That has been my experience with all but a few of my acquaintances and co-workers.
 
AP said:
All a defendant has to do is establish a threat, and usually the other witness is dead. That shifts the burden to prosecutors and police investigators, who have to gather evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that deadly force wasn't justified

This statement that the writer feels that the shooter should be guilty until proven innocent rather than innocent until proven guilty is what I find scariest.
 
Back
Top Bottom