Armed robbers can now kill victims in self defense and not be charged with murder

[Flash]

True. The laws of the state matter. But even the reddest State would have trouble with this.

The baddie had fled. He no longer presented a threat to the Clerk who pursued the Baddie outside and opened fire.

You could argue fleeing felon, but the clerk is not a cop and states don’t give that sort of power to the average citizen.

The robbery is history. It is a matter for the police. It is not relevant to the Clerk coming out to get the guy.

It isn’t a single event. It is two events, sequential, but not connected.

In Georgia, if the Robber had died, the clerk would be facing murder charges. Hell in Georgia we can’t even place someone under citizens arrest.

Most states do not have protection for someone committing a felony, especially if they were armed.

 

[Mac-7]

I remember a black store owner who was charged with murder for booby trapping a rooftop vent after being repeatedly robbed

And that was several years ago so this is not a new form of insanity within the left

 

[Persuader]

As I understand “no duty to retreat” it says that if I am attacked I don’t have to first try to escape before I can use appropreate force to stop the attack.

In my case I would not be able to run from an attacker but instead limp away and hope he would be laughing so hard that if he was trying to shoot me he would miss. I am l;legally handicapped.

The law doesn’t state that i have the right to chase and severely injure or kill my attacker even if he has stolen something of value from me.

While I totally dislike this outcome, it’s probably the correct one.

Current laws do not allow the use of deadly force to protect corporate property. In many areas it won’t even allow deadly force to protect private property. Unfortunately that makes the clerk the aggressor in this situation, and the robber the defensive party. It sucks, but that’s how the law works.

As has been pointed out ad nauseum....it just depends on the state you are in........self defense laws vary from one state to another.

 

[Mac-7]

As has been pointed out ad nauseum....it just depends on the state you are in........self defense laws vary from one state to another.

Ok, give the robber the max for his other crimes instead of a slap on the wrist

But I doubt if the lib DA will even do that

 

[SavannahMann]

Most states do not have protection for someone committing a felony, especially if they were armed.

Even those Reddest states would have called the actions of the Clerk a crime. Had the Robber been the one who died, the Clerk would have been on his way to Prison.

What California is saying in this case is this. The Clerk was wrong. The Clerk was committing a crime in pursuing and shooting at the Robbery Suspect. When someone is committing a crime against you, you have a right to defend yourself.

The Robber is still facing charges. Armed Robbery is still a crime. He will still see the inside of one of California’s overcrowded prisons. So what is the problem?

The problem is that you all want him charged for the death. And the reality is that old policy is falling by the wayside.

If neither had died they would both still be headed to Prison. The Robber for Armed Robbery. The clerk for Assault with a deadly weapon. Or whatever California calls it.

The point of many of us in this thread has been the same. Learn the laws of the State you are in before you break out the Bang Stick. As has been learned by many, to their sorrow, the laws don’t say what you think they do.

In the last few years you had Drejka in Florida. He is serving his 20 year sentence. You have the McMichaels in Georgia. They are serving life without Parole for the shooter, and his Daddy is doing life with the possibility of Parole. He won’t live long enough for that possibility to become reality.

Case after case. Event after event. And the complaints of the RW are still the same. That ain’t right. That’s wrong. That’s bullshit.

Essentially the complaint is that somehow Liberals have changed the laws. Rarely that is the case. Usually it is that the shooters and the internet legal experts who have never driven by a law school are wrong.

So I reiterate. Learn what the laws say before you break out the gun. Because afterwards is too late.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

View attachment 741930

What are you implying? Contra County California has a long history of dubious behaviors by their law enforcement officers.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

If the criminal is no longer in possession of the items he was stealing, I have to agree with you. But if he has a dame's purse or bag of money he stole from a bank- the people have a right to shoot IF they clearly tell the criminal "Stop or I'll shoot" first.

No one is obligated to obey any commands issued by you or anyone else who is not a law enforcement officer in uniform or a plains cloth officer who has clearly identified themself.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Well over 20 years ago I was talking to an owner of a gun store in Tampa. A man had purchased some some items and when the owner opened the cash register, the man hit him in the head with an object and stole the money from the register. He then ran off. The owner recovered from the attack and pursued him with a pistol in his hand until he realized that if he caught up to him and shot him he would be in deep trouble.

Now I can’t speak to all states but as I understand the law in Florida the “stand your ground” law says you don’t have to retreat but doesn’t give you the right to pursue after the attack ends either.

George Zimmerman was being attacked when he used lethal force to stop the attack. Travon Martin didn’t attack Zimmerman and run away with Zimmerman changing him down and shooting him.

Personal Defense Tip: Don't Shoot at a Fleeing Attacker - The Truth About Guns

&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶ Armed self defense is justified in situation in which a reasonable person believes they’re being threatened with death or serious bodily harm. That’s the general standard by which the police and prosecutors examine self-defense shootings. Once an attacker starts to...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

Armed self defense is justified in situation in which a reasonable person believes they’re being threatened with death or serious bodily harm. That’s the general standard by which the police and prosecutors examine self-defense shootings.

Once an attacker starts to leave — whatever he may have said, done or stolen — he no longer presents a threat. And that’s why shooting at a fleeing attacker is a very bad idea.

George Zimmerman initiated the confrontation with Martin and had been following him (stalking him) for a while before that confrontation and did so with no lawful authority. He like many here on this board believe that having a concealed carry permit conveys some type of quasi law enforcement authority which it does not.
Zimmerman should not have been able to avail himself of the self-defense laws under these conditions especially since he told the 911 dispatcher that he was indeed following Martin.

 

[Flash]

Even those Reddest states would have called the actions of the Clerk a crime. Had the Robber been the one who died, the Clerk would have been on his way to Prison.

What California is saying in this case is this. The Clerk was wrong. The Clerk was committing a crime in pursuing and shooting at the Robbery Suspect. When someone is committing a crime against you, you have a right to defend yourself.

The Robber is still facing charges. Armed Robbery is still a crime. He will still see the inside of one of California’s overcrowded prisons. So what is the problem?

The problem is that you all want him charged for the death. And the reality is that old policy is falling by the wayside.

If neither had died they would both still be headed to Prison. The Robber for Armed Robbery. The clerk for Assault with a deadly weapon. Or whatever California calls it.

The point of many of us in this thread has been the same. Learn the laws of the State you are in before you break out the Bang Stick. As has been learned by many, to their sorrow, the laws don’t say what you think they do.

In the last few years you had Drejka in Florida. He is serving his 20 year sentence. You have the McMichaels in Georgia. They are serving life without Parole for the shooter, and his Daddy is doing life with the possibility of Parole. He won’t live long enough for that possibility to become reality.

Case after case. Event after event. And the complaints of the RW are still the same. That ain’t right. That’s wrong. That’s bullshit.

Essentially the complaint is that somehow Liberals have changed the laws. Rarely that is the case. Usually it is that the shooters and the internet legal experts who have never driven by a law school are wrong.

So I reiterate. Learn what the laws say before you break out the gun. Because afterwards is too late.

I don't think since it was an attempted armed robbery he would have been charged here in Florida unless there was some shithead Libtard Democrat Prosecutor.

 

[SavannahMann]

I don't think since it was an attempted armed robbery he would have been charged here in Florida unless there was some shithead Libtard Democrat Prosecutor.

Tell that to Drejka.

 

[Failzero]

A white man that kills a black criminal today under just about any circumstances will have to go before a jury.....and everyone should know going before a jury these days is a big gamble.

The Far Left & Left have it in for CHL/ CWP/ CCW Permits ( And Private Non Military / Non Leo / Non Security State Firearms ownership )

 

[Failzero]

2A purists must understand that Criminals lose their 2A/ RTKBA ( especially in commission of Crimes )

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Bottom line it is a ridiculous concept of the law that allows a perpetrator to claim self defense either whilst he is committing the act or trying to flee the scene.

Well of course it seems ridiculous to you because that's not what the law says.

I personally think when you commit an armed robbery or attempted armed robbery and you end up injured or dead that's just the risk of committing crime HOWEVER it would still bode everyone well to know exactly what you can lawfully do and what you can't and the laws are pretty simple at least in what they state:

1. You can't use lethal force to defend property in most cases and in all states with the exception of Texas and then only under very specific circumstances
​

2. You can use deadly force to protect your own life or the lives of others from a threat of grievous bodily harm or death IF the threat is both credible and IMMIMENT meaning it's happening right now. Thinking someone might come back later and do something if you don't kill them before they get away once they are no longer presenting an "imminent" threat to you is not lawful and is not self-defense because at that point you are not defending yourself or anyone else. You're most like just pissed (and rightfully so) at being robbed and are chasing down the person who did this to you.​

3. If you are the perpetrator of a crime that goes bad and you have to get out of dodge but find your victim following you, even though you just committed a crime, you still have the right to self-defense in a sense and/or not be shot in the back or while you're on the ground. And I say "in a sense" because a person who initiates a confrontation or altercation cannot avail themselves of the self-defense laws in most states. I know for sure because I've read the statute, that they cannot in the state of Florida. Not so sure about the state of California though.​

​

 

[Polishprince]

No one is obligated to obey any commands issued by you or anyone else who is not a law enforcement officer in uniform or a plains cloth officer who has clearly identified themself.

Who says they are "obliged to"? They certainly have the option to take their chances and get their asses capped.

Contrary to what you might think, being a criminal doesn't give you the right to keep illicit booty, and the owner of that booty always has the option to take it back.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

A white man that kills a black criminal today under just about any circumstances will have to go before a jury.....and everyone should know going before a jury these days is a big gamble.

Why do you say that?

 

[Failzero]

If your aware ( Criminal tells you he has a Barrett 50 Cal in his Rig parked outside and is gettin it to shoot you and he rushes for it you can shoot him in the back as he egresses for it ) legally

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Who says they are "obliged to"? They certainly have the option to take their chances and get their asses capped.

Contrary to what you might think, being a criminal doesn't give you the right to keep illicit booty, and the owner of that booty always has the option to take it back.

You said as long as someone says stop or I'll shoot that they can then go ahead and shoot if the fleeing felon doesn't comply with their demand that they stop. You telling them to stop has no authority of law with which they are compelled to comply and you shooting them for failing to comply is completely unlawful.

If you shoot at them and miss and they return fire and kill you then they would be completely in the right of saying they were defending their own life AFTER you tried to shoot them. You shooting at them restored their right to self-defense in spite of them having just previously committed a forcible felony against you.

That's not something anyone should do.

 

[Failzero]

You said as long as someone says stop or I'll shoot that they can then go ahead and shoot if the fleeing felon doesn't comply with their demand that they stop. You telling them to stop has no authority of law with which they are compelled to comply and you shooting them for failing to comply is completely unlawful.

If you shoot at them and miss and they return fire and kill you then they would be completely in the right of saying they were defending their own life AFTER you tried to shoot them. You shooting at them restored their right to self-defense in spite of them having just previously committed a forcible felony against you.

That's not something anyone should do.

Rules of a Gunfight ( Don’t Die )

 

[Polishprince]

You said as long as someone says stop or I'll shoot that they can then go ahead and shoot if the fleeing felon doesn't comply with their demand that they stop. You telling them to stop has no authority of law with which they are compelled to comply and you shooting them for failing to comply is completely unlawful.

If you shoot at them and miss and they return fire and kill you then they would be completely in the right of saying they were defending their own life AFTER you tried to shoot them. You shooting at them restored their right to self-defense in spite of them having just previously committed a forcible felony against you.

That's not something anyone should do.

No.

If the Criminal shoots you under any circumstances, that's a crime. And if you die as a result, that's Capital Murder.

That's why its very important for Criminals not to get violent, that's illegal.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I remember a black store owner who was charged with murder for booby trapping a rooftop vent after being repeatedly robbed

And that was several years ago so this is not a new form of insanity within the left

Now that's messed. I know of someone who had a couple of car batteries in the trunk of his car and had them wire someway as his alarm except it anyone touched the car while it was enabled they could get an electrical shock.

The police REALLY didn't like that, you know, kids could....