WV - Man Shoots Armed Robber, Charged With Murder

[Kevlar]

A robbery gone awry at the Wal-Mart in Logan has left one man dead and another man facing murder charges, according to the Logan Police Department.

Logan Police Sgt. Dave White said David Abbot, 37, of Chapmanville, was shot and killed Monday afternoon by the same man whom Abbot had robbed only seconds prior.

White said Abbot went to the Wal-Mart to rob Jesus Canul, 26, of Logan, who was cashing his paycheck.

"The victim was there with the intention to rob Canul," White said.

After Canul cashed his check, Abbot used some sort of sharp object to take Canul's wallet in the Wal-Mart parking lot, police said.

"(Canul) was held in a head lock," White said. "(Abbot) took the wallet from (Canul's) pocket. So it was forcibly taken.".....

http://www.58wchs.com/includes/news_items/7/news_items_more.php?id=13431&section_id=7

.....Canul has been charged with first-degree murder. He was in the Southwestern Regional Jail Tuesday morning, held without bond.

Logan County prosecutor John Bennett said he needs to find out more about the incident before deciding whether to present the case to a grand jury. Bennett had not yet seen the criminal complaint Tuesday morning.

"All I've got is bits and pieces," Bennett said. "I'm hoping there were several people who saw what happened."

Bennett also said surveillance footage from the store may shed some light on the case. He said he will wait until the investigation is finished before deciding whether to proceed with murder charges.

The next Logan County grand jury convenes in September, Bennett said.

http://sundaygazettemail.com/News/201108230503

Logan County Prosecutor John Bennett fielded a lot of calls Tuesday.

Many of those calls were critical of Bennett's decision to bring murder charges against a Logan man who allegedly shot and killed an accused robber Monday night.

However, the robber was shot as he fled, the criminal complaint says.....

http://www.dailymail.com/News/201108231296

 

[vellnueve]

I personally believe that anybody who will use a weapon to threaten your life is a danger to you at all times from that point onwards. I know the courts don't see it that way, but the premise that someone can assault you or rob you and then be immune from retribution just because their back is turned to you is ridiculous. That said, I know the courts haven't seen it that way and, if true, this guy will probably do time for something. I doubt it'll be first-degree murder, though.

 

[peteyb]

I personally believe that anybody who will use a weapon to threaten your life is a danger to you at all times from that point onwards. I know the courts don't see it that way, but the premise that someone can assault you or rob you and then be immune from retribution just because their back is turned to you is ridiculous. That said, I know the courts haven't seen it that way and, if true, this guy will probably do time for something. I doubt it'll be first-degree murder, though.

I completely agree. It really is rediculous that according to the gov't, just because they turn their back toward you they are no longer a threat. Sigh. I guess they want you to yell or fire a warning shot to get the suspect to turn towards you before you defend yourself

 

[neEEGuru]

Logan County prosecutor John Bennett said he needs to find out more about the incident before deciding whether to present the case to a grand jury. Bennett had not yet seen the criminal complaint Tuesday morning.

"All I've got is bits and pieces," Bennett said. "I'm hoping there were several people who saw what happened."

Well, good to see this guy is sitting in prison without bond while you are "deciding whether to present the case..".

It's that 'presumed innocent' at work again...

 

[Zappa]

He screwed up, when the scumbag runs away you're supposed to yell "hey, I have some more money in my sock", when he turns around to come back, that's when you blast him.

 

[groundscrapers]

the US legal system =

 

[Mr_Irritating]

Great, now theres going to be a rash of criminals running around backwards with guns sticking out under their armpit, looking over their shoulder robbing people. We will be defensless.

 

[noddaduma]

I completely agree. It really is rediculous that according to the gov't, just because they turn their back toward you they are no longer a threat. Sigh. I guess they want you to yell or fire a warning shot to get the suspect to turn towards you before you defend yourself

Disagree. You shoot to stop a threat...you don't shoot to just kill bad guys. Once the threat is removed (either because you defended yourself with deadly force or because the threat removed itself) then the moral (not only legal) justification to use deadly force is removed.

When a thug with a knife rushes you, you should be willing to respond with deadly force to protect life and limb. If the thug takes your wallet and then retreats to run, you are no longer being threatened and I would hope you wouldn't take a life just to retrieve a replaceable wallet and cancelable charge cards.

The point is subtle but important. This isn't a government dictation, this is a moral one. Are you a law abiding citizen or not?

 

[peteyb]

You shoot to stop a threat...and I would hope you wouldn't take a life just to retrieve a replaceable wallet and cancelable charge cards

As the op posted, the shooting took place seconds after the robbery. I dont know about you but seconds arent enough time to put enough distance between me and the robber, for me to feel that he is no longer a threat. And I never said you should use force to protect personal property, I said to defend yourself.

Obviously every situation is different, and your actions will depend on the circumstance. But if somebody robs you at gunpoint, turns around and takes a few steps, I think most people arent going to feel safe just because his back is toward you. Nobody else knows his intentions, and what he is planning to do next.

I am in no way, shape, or form saying that it is okay to use force against somebody who is no longer a threat. I think we just have different opinions on when someone who just threatened your life, is no longer considered a threat to you

 

[NHAtHeart]

You shoot to stop a threat...and I would hope you wouldn't take a life just to retrieve a replaceable wallet and cancelable charge cards

As the op posted, the shooting took place seconds after the robbery. I dont know about you but seconds arent enough time to put enough distance between me and the robber, for me to feel that he is no longer a threat. And I never said you should use force to protect personal property, I said to defend yourself.

Obviously every situation is different, and your actions will depend on the circumstance. But if somebody robs you at gunpoint, turns around and takes a few steps, I think most people arent going to feel safe just because his back is toward you. Nobody else knows his intentions, and what he is planning to do next.

I am in no way, shape, or form saying that it is okay to use force against somebody who is no longer a threat. I think we just have different opinions on when someone who just threatened your life, is no longer considered a threat to you

I'll say it, you should use force to protect personal property, I have no problem saying it, any thief should be taking his life into his own hands when he wants to steal something.

 

[mark056]

I don't think this is going to have a happy ending.

 

[EC1]

Disagree. You shoot to stop a threat...you don't shoot to just kill bad guys. Once the threat is removed (either because you defended yourself with deadly force or because the threat removed itself) then the moral (not only legal) justification to use deadly force is removed.

When a thug with a knife rushes you, you should be willing to respond with deadly force to protect life and limb. If the thug takes your wallet and then retreats to run, you are no longer being threatened and I would hope you wouldn't take a life just to retrieve a replaceable wallet and cancelable charge cards.

The point is subtle but important. This isn't a government dictation, this is a moral one. Are you a law abiding citizen or not?

All I can say is that if this goes to trial and I'm on the jury and the facts are what they appear to be; I would vote to acquit, which would make him "a law abiding citizen".

 

[cb1]

From the third article:

Abbott followed Canul out of the store and pointed a knife at Canul's throat as he was trying to get into his car.

Abbott then took Canul's wallet from his pants.

The guy jumped someone as they were getting in their car, held a knife/scissors to their throat and stole their wallet. The way I see it, he is responsible for his own death.

 

[xtry51]

Disagree. You shoot to stop a threat...you don't shoot to just kill bad guys. Once the threat is removed (either because you defended yourself with deadly force or because the threat removed itself) then the moral (not only legal) justification to use deadly force is removed.

When a thug with a knife rushes you, you should be willing to respond with deadly force to protect life and limb. If the thug takes your wallet and then retreats to run, you are no longer being threatened and I would hope you wouldn't take a life just to retrieve a replaceable wallet and cancelable charge cards.

The point is subtle but important. This isn't a government dictation, this is a moral one. Are you a law abiding citizen or not?

So what you're saying is we need to let those people get away so they can rob and possibly kill someone else? Seriously??

 

[mark056]

So what you're saying is we need to let those people get away so they can rob and possibly kill someone else? Seriously??

Morally I don't have a problem with your position, but legally (and because I want to stay out of prison) noddaduma is correct, at least in most circumstances (there may be exceptions that I am not aware of).

 

[xtry51]

Morally I don't have a problem with your position, but legally (and because I want to stay out of prison) noddaduma is correct, at least in most circumstances (there may be exceptions that I am not aware of).

And there is the problem that has destroyed America. For some reason people accept and follow laws that defy common sense, logic and basic survival instinct. People need to stop abiding by rules that can lead to death.

 

[Boris]

Morally I don't have a problem with your position, but legally (and because I want to stay out of prison) noddaduma is correct, at least in most circumstances (there may be exceptions that I am not aware of).

+1

 

[noddaduma]

So what you're saying is we need to let those people get away so they can rob and possibly kill someone else? Seriously??

I'm saying you should have pulled your damned gun out and defended yourself when he was threatening your life, not after he's trying to get away, because you just stepped into the realm of judge, jury, and executioner at that point. You may be up for it, but I'm not a cold blooded murderer.

Let me put it this way: If you stopped an immediate threat with an (unintentioned) wounding shot, do you finish him off because he may commit crime again in the future?

 

[xtry51]

I'm saying you should have pulled your damned gun out and defended yourself when he was threatening your life, not after he's trying to get away, because you just stepped into the realm of judge, jury, and executioner at that point. You may be up for it, but I'm not a cold blooded murderer.

Let me put it this way: If you stopped an immediate threat with an (unintentioned) wounding shot, do you finish him off because he may commit crime again in the future?

I'm shooting till the threat is stopped, and I'm certainly not firing only one shot in a life threatening situation. Stopped to me means enough holes to not be moving. As they say anything worth shooting once is worth shooting again.

I'll deal with what happens after the shooting, AFTER its all done. I'm not going to be in a life threatening situation and worry about the law. I'm going to defend myself as I see fit in that situation. Consequences of an action have little bearing on my decision making process when my life is threatened. Fear of the law should never trump survival.

ETA: It should be noted in many states you CAN pursue a criminal and shoot him.

 

[noddaduma]

I'm shooting till the threat is stopped, and I'm certainly not firing only one shot in a life threatening situation. Stopped to me means enough holes to not be moving. As they say anything worth shooting once is worth shooting again.

I'll deal with what happens after the shooting, AFTER its all done. I'm not going to be in a life threatening situation and worry about the law. I'm going to defend myself as I see fit in that situation. Consequences of an action have little bearing on my decision making process when my life is threatened. Fear of the law should never trump survival.

Well that's exactly my sentiment as long as a threat is present. But that's not the point I'm trying to make. Some folks in this thread seem to be saying if there's no threat then they would still shoot to kill. My point is if their moral compass is so skewed that they would commit cold-blooded murder then they deserve the full force of the law (and they were likely typing without thinking).

By all means, react by instinct to a threat without fear of repercussions (your life may depend on it). But you sure as heck should understand what does and does not constitute a threat.

 

[mark056]

True, fear of the law should never trump survival but if the threat is moving away from you it is no longer a threat. I think most schools of self-defense accept that premise. The employment of lethal force, when justified, should occur until the threat is neutralized. If the subject is alive but incapacitated he/she is no longer a threat. Again, another basic premise taught by most self-defense schools. You should never, however, shoot to wound, lethal force means exactly that.

I would highly recommend you read the book: In the Gravest Extreme by Massad Ayoob. I think you would find it interesting and educational.

 

[xtry51]

True, fear of the law should never trump survival but if the threat is moving away from you it is no longer a threat. I think most schools of self-defense accept that premise. The employment of lethal force, when justified, should occur until the threat is neutralized. If the subject is alive but incapacitated he/she is no longer a threat. Again, another basic premise taught by most self-defense schools. You should never, however, shoot to wound, lethal force means exactly that.

I would highly recommend you read the book: In the Gravest Extreme by Massad Ayoob. I think you would find it interesting and educational.

Again the two of you are assuming the rest of the country operates on this "threat" sentiment. It does not. In many states you may pursue thieves and shoot them, even in the back. It is my position this is the way things should be. A thief should not be protected by the law during commission of a crime. PERIOD. So yes, I fully support shooting criminals during a crime even in the back while they are running away. To do otherwise condones stealing as OK and provides the criminal more rights than the victim. Making thieves afraid to steal is the first and most important step in preventing crime.

ETA: I own and have read Ayoob's book. I don't care for it.

 

[mark056]

Again the two of you are assuming the rest of the country operates on this "threat" sentiment. It does not. In many states you may pursue thieves and shoot them, even in the back. It is my position this is the way things should be. A thief should not be protected by the law during commission of a crime. PERIOD. So yes, I fully support shooting criminals during a crime even in the back while they are running away. To do otherwise condones stealing as OK and provides the criminal more rights than the victim. Making thieves afraid to steal is the first and most important step in preventing crime.

ETA: I own and have read Ayoob's book. I don't care for it.

Okay, at least you have a baseline for your position. Now what does CT law say?

 

[vellnueve]

Disagree. You shoot to stop a threat...you don't shoot to just kill bad guys. Once the threat is removed (either because you defended yourself with deadly force or because the threat removed itself) then the moral (not only legal) justification to use deadly force is removed.

An armed criminal doesn't become a non-threat just because he's turned his back. The courts have tried to make this a black and white thing but like anything else it's gray.

 

[peteyb]

An armed criminal doesn't become a non-threat just because he's turned his back. The courts have tried to make this a black and white thing but like anything else it's gray.

This. When somebody poses a threat to another person's life, this threat does not disappear based on their body position

 

[josh2600]

Disagree. You shoot to stop a threat...you don't shoot to just kill bad guys. Once the threat is removed (either because you defended yourself with deadly force or because the threat removed itself) then the moral (not only legal) justification to use deadly force is removed.

When a thug with a knife rushes you, you should be willing to respond with deadly force to protect life and limb. If the thug takes your wallet and then retreats to run, you are no longer being threatened and I would hope you wouldn't take a life just to retrieve a replaceable wallet and cancelable charge cards.

The point is subtle but important. This isn't a government dictation, this is a moral one. Are you a law abiding citizen or not?

It may be the law, and it's what I would do because I don't wanna end up in prison, but I personally believe that if someone robs you, you should be able to put one in their back and get your shit back. You don't wanna get shot, don't rob people.

 

[Big Daddy 45acp]

Would I be wrong to kill him with my bare hands? At least he would be facing me when I tore his larynx out.

 

[xtry51]

Okay, at least you have a baseline for your position. Now what does CT law say?

It says I need a good lawyer.

 

[Jsfitzgerald85]

i guess it depends on what your definition of threat is, a person can steal your money run 10 feet turn around and come back at you.

 

[Bill Nance]

Disagree. You shoot to stop a threat...you don't shoot to just kill bad guys. Once the threat is removed (either because you defended yourself with deadly force or because the threat removed itself) then the moral (not only legal) justification to use deadly force is removed.

When a thug with a knife rushes you, you should be willing to respond with deadly force to protect life and limb. If the thug takes your wallet and then retreats to run, you are no longer being threatened and I would hope you wouldn't take a life just to retrieve a replaceable wallet and cancelable charge cards.

The point is subtle but important. This isn't a government dictation, this is a moral one. Are you a law abiding citizen or not?

Wow, you have it wrong.

Morally, if you use force of violence or threat thereof to rob someone, as far as I'm concerned you should have just signed your own death warrant. You just threatened to kill me if I didnt give you the wallet. Or in this case, assaulted me and took it by force. I wouldn't lose a moment's sleep for putting 6 into your back as you ran away with my wallet.

I wouldn't DO it, but only because the law prevents me. Morally, robbing someone with violence should be treated as seriously as attempted murder.