Another Good Guy with a Gun saves a life:
The suspect first tried to attack the customer and then went after a clerk behind the counter, wounding him in the stomach, the sheriff’s office said…The shooting will be investigated, and the case will be sent to a prosecutor to determine if charges should be filed against the shooter.
Tickets will be punched:
King County Sheriff Sgt. Cindi West told NBC News that “during the initial investigation we did not see any wrongdoing on the part of the citizen who shot.”
But the sheriff did make one important side note:
“In fact, he may have prevented the clerk from being killed or seriously injured,” she said.
A good guy on the scene with a gun; if you don’t happen to have a cop on the premises, it’s just about the best response to crime there is.
This showed up in my FB trending feed the other day. So I made the mistake of checking what other people had written about it. There was a copy and pasted paragraph about how they can’t understand why they just didn’t shoot the axe-wielding attacker in the leg, why did they have to kill him? One special snowflake made the comment that “his death just further re-inforces my anti-gun opinion. I will never believe anyone should have a gun for any reason whatsoever, ever again”.
I didn’t take the bait. I was too tired, and frankly, that level of stupid wasn’t worth my time.
If this had happened in Minnesota, what result? While ax-man is attacking clerk, clerk has a duty to retreat if safely possible, before using deadly force. When asserting Defense of Others, it’s as if shooter stepped into clerks shoes – if clerk could have safely retreated, shooter cannot fire. Shooter may save clerk’s life but still go to prison because in Minnesota, clerk has a legal duty to RUN AWAY. Clerk is not entitled to stand his ground.
Would the shooter have gone to prison in MN? Depends on the county – in Kandiyohi county, the prosecutor would likely hail him as a hero – and on the quality of lawyer the shooter brings, and the luck they have in drawing a judge.
In my first round of carry permit training, I asked my teacher – the late Joel Rosenberg – about a very similar situation. His advice – leave if you can. If you can’t, withdraw from the criminal and be ready to defend yourself, if it comes to that (I phrased it as “hide at the back of the store and set and ambush”, and Joel didn’t disagree).
There have been four (at least) incidents in the Twin Cities metro since last summer were a permit holder stopped a crime. In two cases, the permit holder was the intended victim, in the other two the holder defended another (one without shots being fired). So far, no charges against any of the holders, and they’ve even managed to keep their names out of the papers (except in the last case where the holder’s name can be deduced). Back in 2011 a permit holder also defended another would-be victim, killing the assailant (Darren Evanovich) and the holder also wasn’t charged or his name released.
The potential for prosecutorial zeal or grand-standing is always there, but other than the Treptow circus, the authorities in the metro have been circumspect and even supportive in these situations (perhaps in part because of the backwash from the Treptow case).
In this case, the permit holder could not have retreated without endangering the clerk’s life. Now perhaps the DA would prosecute anyways in some places, but I think any decent defense lawyer can make this point and get at least one juror. Personally, I know I’d sleep better if I took action and ended up broke than if I didn’t and I attended the victim’s funeral.
Pingback: In The Mailbox: 03.15.16 : The Other McCain
I understand the impulse, BikeBubba. But I’m married and have children. My primarily obligation as a husband and father is to protect my family.
Save my own life by shooting the ax-man? Obviously, that’s a no-brainer.
Spend my family’s life savings on a defense lawyer only to abandon my wife and kids while I go to prison for saving yours? Well, now, let’s think about that.
The awful conundrum is caused by the clerk’s duty to RUN AWAY, a legal duty that I inherit when I step in to defend him. I wouldn’t have to make the hard choice if Minnesota had Stand Your Ground.
Well, let me throw this out.
Let’s say said clerk is wounded, on the ground and can’t get up to defend himself. Consider the fact that in the past, neighbors banded together for mutual protection or defense. You defend the clerk who is basically defenseless. I really doubt that a jury could arrive at a unanimous guilty verdict.
@bosshoss429:
White (hispanic/asian) clerk, black perp, black jury, white shooter? You do the math.
I stick my neck out for nobody.
BossHoss–agreed, but keep in mind that by the time someone in the middle class gets exonerated, he’s out six figures. Better to be tried by twelve than carried by six, sure, and I’d sleep better doing the right thing, sure, but the law needs to be clarified to protect those who protect others AND…..allow prosecution of prosecutors who ignore clear law and prosecute innocents. Give ’em the Nifong treatment.
Trevon is back in the news
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/03/15/a-miami-woman-killed-a-teen-burglar-as-he-fled-her-home-should-she-be-charged/?tid=pm_national_pop_b
Kel’s link illustrates the Bernhard Goetz paradox; we have a series of actions that are not strictly speaking legal, but given a strong trend of the “perpetrators” being repeatedly victimized without effective action by police, shouldn’t that trend at least be a mitigating circumstance?
Put gently, a Minnetonka homeowner whose home is burglarized once does not have the same experience as a North Minneapolis homeowner who has been burglarized five times, and furthermore most strongly modify his schedule to avoid the worst of the crime. I would argue that we ought to be more lenient on the latter because he knows from experience that the police aren’t getting the job done.