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

[Mac-7]

Remember the McMichaels? I kept telling you, and I remember your posts, that they were screwed in Georgia. They were tried in one of the more conservative areas. And I told you that they would be convicted. Not because of the Media. Not because of the potential for protest. But because they had literally done every single thing the instructor at the training class had told us not to do.

I dont recall arguing with you about that or anything else

If you have a link I’ll review it

 

[hadit]

This is the world we now live in.

California robbery suspect killed store clerk, not charged with murder; victim didn’t act in self-defense: DA

James Williams, 36, opened fire on the robbery suspects as they were fleeing before one fatally shot him in the leg and chest, authorities said

A man accused of killing a California gas station clerk during a "botched" robbery will not face a murder charge because the victim had opened fire on the suspect despite his life not being in danger, officials said Thursday.

James Williams, 36, was killed during an early Saturday morning gunfight with Ronald Jackson Jr., 20, at a Chevron in Antioch, Fox San Francisco reported.

The Antioch Police Department said a gas station employee called to report a person had been shot at the Extra Mile mini-mart just after 2 a.m. When officers arrived, they found a man with a gunshot wound to the head inside the store.

"Officers at the scene were able to determine that the victim was an employee-clerk at the service station and was held-up at gunpoint during what appears to be a 'botched robbery,'" a police statement said. Williams was working inside the store when he was confronted by two suspects, one of whom was identified as Jackson, who was allegedly armed with a gun. Williams then pulled out his own weapon. Jackson allegedly ran out of the store, while dropping cigar packages, and was shot. Williams kept firing as Jackson was on the ground before Jackson allegedly returned fire and killed him, the news report said.

"He didn't deserve this, and he was such a good guy, family man," Annette Matamoroz, Williams' girlfriend and co-worker who was in the store when he was killed, told the news outlet. Jackson was not charged with murder because under the law, the killing could be considered self-defense, authorities said.

The Contra Costa County District Attorney's Office said Williams pursued Jackson despite the threat of bodily harm or injury had subsided. "In the eyes of the law, Mr. Williams' actions ceased to be self-defense when Mr. Williams pursued Mr. Jackson and the other suspect with a firearm and continued to pursue Mr. Jackson after he shot him," Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton said in a news release.

"The legal distinction is clear: when your property and life are being threatened, an individual is legally justified in using deadly force in self-defense," she added. "However, once the threat of harm has dissipated, the victim of a property crime cannot then use deadly force to reclaim stolen property."

Antioch investigators submitted their findings to the district attorney's office, which instead "elected to charge Jackson with robbery, possession of stolen property, and a firearm enhancement, but declined to charge him with murder," police said.

"The members of the Antioch Police Department extend their condolences to the family and friends of Mr. Williams," the department said.

This is the Clown World we live in now.

Once the robbers turned and ran, the clerk should have stood down. There's no justification to shoot someone who's no threat and is running away. In fact, this is another example of how foolish it is to pursue someone who is armed and running away, the other being the Kyle Rittenhouse case.

 

[hadit]

Gun nuts struggle with the concept, "Reasonable force", their objective is shoot to kill with as many bullets as they can in any situation. Change my mind.

Easy.

1. You believe a fallacy.
2. If you were correct, there would be a whole lot more bullets flying around.
3. You are no a mind reader, despite what the back page of your comic book says the foil helmet gives you.

 

[Failzero]

Once the robbers turned and ran, the clerk should have stood down. There's no justification to shoot someone who's no threat and is running away. In fact, this is another example of how foolish it is to pursue someone who is armed and running away, the other being the Kyle Rittenhouse case.

But if the Robber said before egressing “ I have a Barrett 50 Cal in my Rig parked outside and when I get to it your Swiss cheese “
You have the right to shoot him in the back as he attempts to bring more danger to you by egressing .

 

[Failzero]

They claim the clerk pursued the criminal.....yet according to statement he never left the store and in fact was killed by the criminal whilst still in the store. The authorities in Calif. so biased by their liberal mindset can never be counted on to tell the truth irregardless.

I’m prepared that if & when I use my California CCW to defend myself from death or grievous bodily injury it will mean my CCW will be yanked ( even if it’s a good shoot and no prosecution follows )

 

[SavannahMann]

But if the Robber said before egressing “ I have a Barrett 50 Cal in my Rig parked outside and when I get to it your Swiss cheese “
You have the right to shoot him in the back as he attempts to bring more danger to you by egressing .

Ok. So that would tell you the gun the Robber is currently holding doesn’t work. Wouldn’t it?

 

[Failzero]

Ok. So that would tell you the gun the Robber is currently holding doesn’t work. Wouldn’t it?

I would egress for Conceal or Cover ( or both ) to top off in a gun battle , why not egress for your Chinese type 56 “ Spiker “ AK with a 40 round stick ?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

How do you feel about Florida passing constitutional carry next year?

MSN

www.msn.com

Well considering my own stats I would not be inclined to want any legislation that restricts law abiding citizens from exercising their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. On the other hand however, there are people who it would be frightening to know that they are doing so without a background check or any training. I say this because as I have seen here on this message board that there are people who HAVE been background checked and/or trained yet apparently still do not really understand the personal and legal implications of not only carrying a lethal weapon, but using it.

I had an extensive discussion with a member of U.S. Message Board who is a case in point when he kept insisting that simply having a Florida concealed carry permit authorized the holder to use the weapon for self-defense. When I pointed out to him that his permit ONLY authorized him to carry the weapon and that the law authorizing use of the firearm in self-defense was a different statute he began attempting to ridicule me and to the end keep insisting that I couldn't possibly have a Florida CLP if I didn't know that it authorized using my carry weapon for self-defense.

It just so happens that I was in the process of renewing my permit during this discussion and when it arrived in the mail, the card it was attached to stated the following:
The Reason for Poverty Among Blacks is Not Racism

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I’m prepared that if & when I use my California CCW to defend myself from death or grievous bodily injury it will mean my CCW will be yanked ( even if it’s a good shoot and no prosecution follows )

Pray tell how you managed to obtain a CCW in California. Are in you in one of the northern counties where it's rumored they issue?

 

[Failzero]

Pray tell how you managed to obtain a CCW in California. Are in you in one of the northern counties where it's rumored they issue?

Had my Shasta County CCW since 2011 , Friend in Culver City got his Initial Los Angeles County CCW 2 months ago ( like 30 + Counties issue in Ca. Perhaps more

 

[Batcat]

Well considering my own stats I would not be inclined to want any legislation that restricts law abiding citizens from exercising their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. On the other hand however, there are people who it would be frightening to know that they are doing so without a background check or any training. I say this because as I have seen here on this message board that there are people who HAVE been background checked and/or trained yet apparently still do not really understand the personal and legal implications of not only carrying a lethal weapon, but using it.

I had an extensive discussion with a member of U.S. Message Board who is a case in point when he kept insisting that simply having a Florida concealed carry permit authorized the holder to use the weapon for self-defense. When I pointed out to him that his permit ONLY authorized him to carry the weapon and that the law authorizing use of the firearm in self-defense was a different statute he began attempting to ridicule me and to the end keep insisting that I couldn't possibly have a Florida CLP if I didn't know that it authorized using my carry weapon for self-defense.

It just so happens that I was in the process of renewing my permit during this discussion and when it arrived in the mail, the card it was attached to stated the following:
The Reason for Poverty Among Blacks is Not Racism

Well constitutional carry seems to work in many states so I hope it will work in Florida.

It would be nice if the unlicensed people had some knowledge of the laws involving firearms in their state. Perhaps they could be required to pass an internet test that wouldn’t cost anything. If they do not have computers they could take the test at a library.

If nothing else they could at least watch this video.

 

[Batcat]

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.

Perhaps in any state that has constitutional carry the state should provide a pamphlet that shows the laws of the state involving firearms and self defense. There could be a test on line that wouldn’t cost anything you could take to determine if you knew the laws of your state.

If you are going to carry a gun it might be wise to attend a concealed carry class. Many gun shows offer them.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Had my Shasta County CCW since 2011 , Friend in Culver City got his Initial Los Angeles County CCW 2 months ago ( like 30 + Counties issue in Ca. Perhaps more

Oh wow, your friend in Culver City, this was apparently after the Supreme Court ruling striking down those discretionary rejections of CCW applications? It's good to hear that the process has begun.

Yes I heard a long time ago that many of the northern California counties would issue because the counties there are so vast and the sheriffs realize that people are often on their own in an emergency so they reasoned that they needed to allow them to protect themselves.

 

[Persuader]

Once the robbers turned and ran, the clerk should have stood down. There's no justification to shoot someone who's no threat and is running away. In fact, this is another example of how foolish it is to pursue someone who is armed and running away, the other being the Kyle Rittenhouse case.

The clerk did not pursue the criminal....he was inside the store when he was killed.

 

[Persuader]

Once the robbers turned and ran, the clerk should have stood down. There's no justification to shoot someone who's no threat and is running away. In fact, this is another example of how foolish it is to pursue someone who is armed and running away, the other being the Kyle Rittenhouse case.

Idiots espouse such b.s.----the robber was armed thus a threat as long as was within shooting istance to the clerk....being outside the door does not mean he would not turn and fire a deadly shot....btw which he of course did....yet you stupidly claim he was no threat.....you being stupid does not bother me.....what bothers me is that stooopid like you are allowed on juries.

 

[Failzero]

Oh wow, your friend in Culver City, this was apparently after the Supreme Court ruling striking down those discretionary rejections of CCW applications? It's good to hear that the process has begun.

Yes I heard a long time ago that many of the northern California counties would issue because the counties there are so vast and the sheriffs realize that people are often on their own in an emergency so they reasoned that they needed to allow them to protect themselves.

He started the Process months prior to the SCOTUS ruling ( LA County Sheriff started issuing a few years ago )

 

[Failzero]

Oh wow, your friend in Culver City, this was apparently after the Supreme Court ruling striking down those discretionary rejections of CCW applications? It's good to hear that the process has begun.

Yes I heard a long time ago that many of the northern California counties would issue because the counties there are so vast and the sheriffs realize that people are often on their own in an emergency so they reasoned that they needed to allow them to protect

Ventura County has been Issuing for 20+ years

 

[SavannahMann]

I would egress for Conceal or Cover ( or both ) to top off in a gun battle , why not egress for your Chinese type 56 “ Spiker “ AK with a 40 round stick ?

First we need to agree we don’t know how the robbery went down. Second. If we assume that the idiots were not pointing guns at each other across the counter then we have some ideas.

Yes. I know the danger of assuming. I selected that word with that express purpose in mind.

I say we assume because the clerk was dumb and apparently opened fire as soon as he could. If he was dumb enough to do that then he was certainly dumb enough to draw on a drawn gun and start shooting.

While the baddie is egressing dial 911 and get the cops started. Prepare your own evacuation plan in case the moron does get more firepower.

Not drawing on a drawn gun is a lesson covered by several websites and videos. I saved this one.



The first thing you have to do if you are going to carry is think. Think about what you are likely to end up in. Think about possible scenarios. Think about your best options. I agree with your concealment or cover line. It is my first instinctive action as well. Seek cover, if none is available seek concealment, if there ain’t none make yourself as small of a target as possible.

I have no heartburn with the idea of withdrawing. I know if I ever break out my weapon the odds are even if I get shot by the baddie or the responding cops. I won’t pull on a whim. Like you I haven’t pulled yet. I figure I probably won’t, but if I have to, I will.

But basic principles of defense coupled with knowledge of the laws will keep me not only alive, but free from legal jeopardy.

In Georgia, it is especially problematic. Let me explain. If I think the Baddie is armed I can’t pull. That is Aggravated Assault. Basically I can’t pull until I see the baddie do something that warrants a lethal response. If the Baddie sees me armed and drops his gun. I can not detain him. If I do I’m going to prison for False Imprisonment. I as a citizen do not have the authority to detain him. I can’t hold him for police. I can’t even suggest he sit down and wait. In fact I would be taking a risk keeping the gun out in that scenario.

So my plan is to seek cover and then pull. No quick draw bullshit that won’t work in the moment.

This is a legal response to the situation that is also the best defensive plan I can come up with.

 

[hadit]

The clerk did not pursue the criminal....he was inside the store when he was killed.

He shot after a fleeing suspect who posed no threat to him. That's the point.

 

[hadit]

Idiots espouse such b.s.----the robber was armed thus a threat as long as was within shooting istance to the clerk....being outside the door does not mean he would not turn and fire a deadly shot....btw which he of course did....yet you stupidly claim he was no threat.....you being stupid does not bother me.....what bothers me is that stooopid like you are allowed on juries.

He turned and fired a fatal shot because he was himself being shot at.