Ridiculous self defense acceptance by DA

When would it be inappropriate to shoot at the robber? There's a threshold there somewhere. Where do you think it is?
I don't think the clerk was justified in shooting when he did, but that doesn't erase the fact that this event was a direct result of the armed robbery.
 
I don't think the clerk was justified in shooting when he did, but that doesn't erase the fact that this event was a direct result of the armed robbery.
I don't think theres a single person who'd say the events weren't tied together.

Guns in civilian hands are intended to stop people who are threats. And as we've seen, when people are running away and no longer a threat the legal situation gets wonky.... sometimes for the best and sometimes not. But the fact remains if you shoot someone who at the time was not a direct threat it's going to be a frustrating day in court.

There was a post here a few months ago I believe with someone being sucker punched. Bad guy went away and was no longer a threat. Victim got up and shot the bad guy. The bad guy could of easily finished the good guy with something as simple as a head kick. But he didn't. He sucker punched someone and went off. Then he got shot. Was he a threat anymore? it's a tough sell, as he could of ended the good guys life had he chose to. I suspect the good guy could make a reasonable claim that he was disorientaed from being struck in the head, however, the threat was not active when he finally got around to shooting.

People should shoot people who need to be shot. If you don't have to shoot them, don't. Easy to say, but that's really the core of the situation here. All the training I've had over the years right or wrong instilled in me shoot till the targets no longer a threat. And in a lot of cases posted on NES, the threat isn't present anymore (hell, in some cases the "good guy" is the one escalating [ie, TX front porch chest bumping thing]). A lot of these seem to be revenge situations as opposed to directly stopping an active threat.
 
When would it be inappropriate to shoot at the robber? There's a threshold there somewhere. Where do you think it is?
An interesting discussion but a different one than this case. The issue here is murder as a result of committing a felony.

Clearly once the robber has turned his back and is running away and no longer a threat to anyone, you do not have a justification to shoot him. There is little doubt the dead guy was in the wrong when he shot. But his death still falls back on the person committing armed robbery.
 
An interesting discussion but a different one than this case. The issue here is murder as a result of committing a felony.

Clearly once the robber has turned his back and is running away and no longer a threat to anyone, you do not have a justification to shoot him. There is little doubt the dead guy was in the wrong when he shot. But his death still falls back on the person committing armed robbery.
I get hung up on "felony." That word means a lot of stuff. From killing people to selling cow jizz.

Let's not use it. Let's use "committing an act that requires a lethal force response." because if Dench is out back selling illegal Bull Cum to @Broc I really prefer not to get shot over it. You guys can just tell me to knock it off instead of putting 2 in my chest [rofl]

felony is almost meaningless now. Way to much shit is in that category.
 
No. The whole thing starts with armed robbery. The death of the clerk is a direct consequence of the initial armed robbery felony. They can and should be charged with murder as it occurred as part of the commission of a felony. It does not matter that the person shot also committed an illegal act. This would never have happened had the initial armed robbery not occurred.

You are a bad dude and are in the act of committing armed robbery. The police show up and open fire and kill an innocent bystander. You drop your gun and surrender. You are charged with armed robbery and felony murder for the death of the innocent bystander.

This case is no different. Why they died does not matter. They died because you committed armed robbery.

Just another case of CA being biased towards the perpetrator of crimes. They are f u c k e d.
This is what I remember how it's supposed to be.
 
Unfortunately a good call.
The threat ended when the victim pursued the the guy and continued to fire.
Not clean but self defense all day long.
If they were going to track down and prosecute the robber, sure, I'd agree with this.

The simple fact is, they weren't. This is just another example of the government teaching people to be victims.

The next step is people saying 'no' to being taken in for questioning when a 'good guy' shoots a 'bad guy'. Think of the line in Tombstone, when Wyatt says, "I don't think I'm going to let you arrest me".
 
No but you can't just ignore self defense law simply because the person is a scumbag.

It's not that I don't understand. It's that I think it doesn't make sense. Let the felon off the hook to do it again and maybe kill another person again? I get the clerk wasn't suppose to pursue in CA, but the argument that the robber was vacating, and thus no longer a treat, is complete BS. He still had a gun on him, right?
 
Missing the point. It's not about whether self defense was in play or not. NOTHING matters once he committed armed robbery. Everything that happens as a direct result of that action is on him.
At what point after breaking contact does that stop though? The shooter is 100% guilty of an armed robbery. When the dude took off running from the store the threat had gone. Now if he had dumped the goods in the car and went back for more than the clerk would have a far better justification that the threat was still imminent. I don't know many places that would justify you running after someone who was a threat and shooting them.
 
This is all entirely dependent on the location. For example, in Texas you can shoot someone on sight just for trespassing after dark. In fact, in most states you can use deadly force to protect property - not in CA or MA of course. Similarly, in many places the local authorities wouldn't even raise an eyebrow if you blew someone away on your property. It all depends!
even in a state that allows the use of lethal force to defend property you are still facing an uphill battle to justify shooting someone in the process of breaking contact from you.
 
This is all entirely dependent on the location. For example, in Texas you can shoot someone on sight just for trespassing after dark. In fact, in most states you can use deadly force to protect property - not in CA or MA of course. Similarly, in many places the local authorities wouldn't even raise an eyebrow if you blew someone away on your property. It all depends!
correct about location. I was visiting cousins in FL some time ago and during dinner, we heard something in the yard.
The cousin took less than a second to get his firearm and go outside to take a look with the raised gun.
Being from MA, I thought it was surreal he could just go hunting for criminals in his yard like that.
 
Unfortunately a good call.
The threat ended when the victim pursued the the guy and continued to fire.
Not clean but self defense all day long.

You are correct, because the law is not right.

Time to bring back posses... 🤔

View attachment 693229

Posses are too much work, we'll never find the bad guys. We just need good old fashioned vigilance committees again. Since the police's hands are tied, once they begin the arrest they can page citizens, who can then hang the criminal from the nearest branch, lightpost or yardarm. All they need to do is stand aside, as they've been ordered to so many times.

And if the bad guy's friends show up to "protest", just bring more rope.


This will only need to be "legal" for a couple years before law and order return.
 
So I hold up a bank. As I am fleeing, the police start shooting at me. I return fire and kill a police officer.
I am arrested and at the end of the trial I win because my counsel said I was defending myself.
What in the Holy hell is going on in California's injustice system?
 
I agree that he is not innocent in the matter but the shot was not legally murder.


If a person punches you and then runs away can you chase them down and issue a instructional beat down? No, you can't legally take the fight to them because you are not allowed vengance.
This is the same situation - once Jackson ran away the deadly force event ended. The clerk started a new deadly force event when he gave chase and continued to fire upon a grounded person.

The perpetrator didn’t punch or stab and run, he had a gun. If the clerk could shoot the robber, the robber could shoot the clerk. The deadly threat still existed here. It’s absolutely a question for a jury, it’s not a case which should be cleared without charges.
 
So I hold up a bank. As I am fleeing, the police start shooting at me. I return fire and kill a police officer.
I am arrested and at the end of the trial I win because my counsel said I was defending myself.
What in the Holy hell is going on in California's injustice system?

In most states, the law doesn’t allow you to use force against a cop even if the cop is in the wrong.
 
This is all entirely dependent on the location. For example, in Texas you can shoot someone on sight just for trespassing after dark. In fact, in most states you can use deadly force to protect property - not in CA or MA of course. Similarly, in many places the local authorities wouldn't even raise an eyebrow if you blew someone away on your property. It all depends!

Be very careful about using deadly force to protect property. It varies significantly by state and even though Texas allows deadly force to protect properly, it’s very limited.

People should ask themselves if an item is worth the possibility of life in prison? Pro tip, no property is worth using deadly force to protect.
 
When would it be inappropriate to shoot at the robber? There's a threshold there somewhere. Where do you think it is?

If it’s to protect your life/body or someone else. If it’s solely to protect the property, items, etc, do not use deadly force. You are engaging in a possible gunfight you may lose and if you win, you may find a prosecutor wants to put you in prison for unlawful force.
 
Why does a probably 15 dollar an hour store clerk give 2 f'ks about risking his life to prevent a robbery? That is question number 1

Let the robber take it all, it's not your money or stuff, you can get another job if the owner fires you for not risking your life to save HIS Money and products.

Why? For the same reason cops are involved in bad shootings at times. It’s a high stress situation and people often make bad decisions in those situations. That’s why cop training is such a joke, they don’t train for those situations
 
Why? For the same reason cops are involved in bad shootings at times. It’s a high stress situation and people often make bad decisions in those situations. That’s why cop training is such a joke, they don’t train for those situations
I'm not following you, I feel it's alot less stressful telling some maggot to take the register or whatever else he wants when he is pointing a gun in your face over someone else's shit than getting into a gunfight over it or chasing after him after the fact.

There is a reason why bankers are told to just hand over the money during a robbery, someone else's money can be replaced, shot bullets cannot be taken back.

Shitty Cop training is irrelevant to this type of situation.

Is your life or massive legal troubles worth chasing after and getting into a gun fight with someone who just stole something?

We are not talking about getting mugged, assaulted or a home invasion here, we are talking about a thief already out the door and going after him shooting. It's not a good play no matter how you might justify it, the clerk is not a crime fighter, again stolen money or bags of groceries are easy to replace, getting shot isnt.

Opinions vary, my stance is let the dude run off into the night and go back to being alive or not jammed up legally
 
The perpetrator didn’t punch or stab and run, he had a gun. If the clerk could shoot the robber, the robber could shoot the clerk. The deadly threat still existed here. It’s absolutely a question for a jury, it’s not a case which should be cleared without charges.
Neither of us were there.
Taking the report at face value Jackson ran from the scene and the victim followed him continuing to shoot after Jackson was on the ground.
Running toward a fleeing attacker is not self defense - it may be defense of other if there is someone who is coming into danger because of the attackers movements but as soon as an attacker disengages the legal justification for lethal force extinguishes.
 
Justice Must Be Served.

Nothing less can be tolerated and is why We are in the trouble We are in now...
 
For anyone questioning my position here please spend some time here: Law of Self Defense
I've spent a lot of time there. You clearly haven't spent enough.

Note that the issue is not whether or not the clerk would have had a valid self-defense claim had he killed the robber (notwithstanding that he had a decent case for it - see about 31 minutes into the video below). This issue is whether the clerk can be said to have initiated the encounter. He clearly did not, where the armed robber did. That is the trigger for the felony murder statute, not the clerk's pursuit, so the robber's claim would be a Hail Mary attempt to get out of the murder charge.

My speculation on why charges weren't filed? I think the DA wants to discourage any use of firearms by the hoi polloi, and this is a means to do so.

Oh, and Andrew Branca (the guy whose website you linked to) agrees with me. If you're going to point to someone as an expert, you should check his position on the issue first (the video should open at timestamp 11:35).

View: https://youtu.be/gasKwpfWZ4I?t=695

Running toward a fleeing attacker is not self defense - it may be defense of other if there is someone who is coming into danger because of the attackers movements but as soon as an attacker disengages the legal justification for lethal force extinguishes.
Swing and a miss. See Branca's bottom line on that point (the video should open at timestamp 44:50).
 
Last edited:
I've spent a lot of time there. You clearly haven't spent enough.
And you obviously have spent too much time patting yourself on the back and not enough time reading what people have written - so GFY.

Note that the issue is not whether or not the clerk would have had a valid self-defense claim had he killed the robber (notwithstanding that he had a decent case for it - see about 31 minutes into the video below). This issue is whether the clerk can be said to have initiated the encounter. He clearly did not, where the armed robber did. That is the trigger for the felony murder statute, not the clerk's pursuit, so the robber's claim would be a Hail Mary attempt to get out of the murder charge.
My posts were based on the information contained in the linked article and were posted before Andrew Branca's video was available.
I also caveated my position as evidenced in my response to jkelly1229.
It isn't until this post that Branca's video was even available (but I haven't yet watched it so I don't know what other information he presents that was not available in the linked article)
And in that post I made it clear that my position was based on the limited information given and only that information spelled out why I held that position (which is correct)

My speculation on why charges weren't filed? I think the DA wants to discourage any use of firearms by the hoi polloi, and this is a means to do so.
Please expound on how you came up with this and specifically what you mean by it.
Oh, and Andrew Branca (the guy whose website you linked to) agrees with me. If you're going to point to someone as an expert, you should check his position on the issue first (the video should open at timestamp 11:35).

View: https://youtu.be/gasKwpfWZ4I?t=695


Swing and a miss. See Branca's bottom line on that point (the video should open at timestamp 44:50).

If you feel vindicated on a win or whatever makes you rub yourself to sleep, have at it - Given the information in the article my point stands that even though Jackson had robbed the clerk, the clerk looses the right to deadly force as soon as Jackson flees the scene. If the clerk gives chase in order to continue the use of deadly force then the clerk opens himself up to legal action for the unjustified use of deadly force.
Even police are not allow to just shoot you if you are fleeing.
 
Neither of us were there.
Taking the report at face value Jackson ran from the scene and the victim followed him continuing to shoot after Jackson was on the ground.
Running toward a fleeing attacker is not self defense - it may be defense of other if there is someone who is coming into danger because of the attackers movements but as soon as an attacker disengages the legal justification for lethal force extinguishes.

On the ground or not, the robber was still such a threat that he was able to shoot back. A self defense case where the other person has a gun is completely different than when a person has a bat, knife etc and distance minimizes or negates the threat. Distance doesn’t make an armed person a non threat
 
I'm not following you, I feel it's alot less stressful telling some maggot to take the register or whatever else he wants when he is pointing a gun in your face over someone else's shit than getting into a gunfight over it or chasing after him after the fact.

There is a reason why bankers are told to just hand over the money during a robbery, someone else's money can be replaced, shot bullets cannot be taken back.

Shitty Cop training is irrelevant to this type of situation.

Is your life or massive legal troubles worth chasing after and getting into a gun fight with someone who just stole something?

We are not talking about getting mugged, assaulted or a home invasion here, we are talking about a thief already out the door and going after him shooting. It's not a good play no matter how you might justify it, the clerk is not a crime fighter, again stolen money or bags of groceries are easy to replace, getting shot isnt.

Opinions vary, my stance is let the dude run off into the night and go back to being alive or not jammed up legally

I agree completely it’s foolish to get in a gun fight over property. I’m sure a bank teller is stressed in a robbery, even if they don’t plan on resisting. Can’t be a fun feeling having a gun pointed at you and not knowing if th3 person will shoot away.
 
Back
Top Bottom