Ridiculous self defense acceptance by DA

[Rob Boudrie]

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

A man accused of killing a California gas station clerk will not face a murder charge because he could claim self-defense, reports said.

www.foxnews.com

Why couldn't they have charged the hold up man under the felony murder doctrine?

 

[CrackPot]

Because we needed further proof that California is lost. We almost need a mega thread in all the stupid shit CA does

Video of apple store being robbed and the employees helping
San Francisco declaring the NRA a terrorist organization
San Francisco voting to allow robots to use lethal force

 

[pastera]

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.

 

[lancecolonel]

is this a case of cali trying to gin up public outrage to do away with "self defense" laws?

 

[CrackPot]

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.

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.

 

[pastera]

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.

I agree that he is not innocent in the matter but the shot was not legally murder.

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.

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.

 

[jkelly1229]

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.

Probably gunna need to go to the tape on this one.

If the dude fell right outside the door to the store and was still armed id say its murder

But if the clerk chased the guy halfway down the street its not murder

The way the article is written tho doesnt seem like it was murder

 

[pastera]

For anyone questioning my position here please spend some time here: Law of Self Defense

 

[pastera]

Probably gunna need to go to the tape on this one.

If the dude fell right outside the door to the store and was still armed id say its murder

But if the clerk chased the guy halfway down the street its not murder

The way the article is written tho doesnt seem like it was murder

Agree that there is very likely a lot more to the story but if Jackson was retreating from the scene then the deadly force threat had ended.
If he had stopped because he was being fired upon for the purpose of returning fire then the threat was continuing and Jackson should experience the big bye-bye needle.

 

[SHOCKNAWE]

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.

 

[bigbravehog]

Agree that there is very likely a lot more to the story but if Jackson was retreating from the scene then the deadly force threat had ended.
If he had stopped because he was being fired upon for the purpose of returning fire then the threat was continuing and Jackson should experience the big bye-bye needle.

agreed

"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.

 

[Dennis in MA]

Remember that time that Dawg duh Bounnyhunnah went to PMITA Prison because he was getaway driver for some robbers and someone got kilt?

What ever happened to "death related to your robbery" murder charge in this country?????

Oh right. This is Cali. Where the Guv has decided to withhold homeless funds from cities until the cities do a better job of dealing with the homeless. ROFL!!!

 

[enbloc]

Time to bring back posses...

 

[CrackPot]

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.

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.

 

[eboos]

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.

I know what you are saying, and this is about 90% there, but I agree with @Rob Boudrie in that this was a foreseeable consequence of the armed robbery and Felony Murder should apply under these circumstances.

 

[Buck F]

Agree that there is very likely a lot more to the story but if Jackson was retreating from the scene then the deadly force threat had ended.
If he had stopped because he was being fired upon for the purpose of returning fire then the threat was continuing and Jackson should experience the big bye-bye needle.

agreed

"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.

You'd think they'd argue that he was still a threat even on the ground since he still had his gun and was able to kill the guy

 

[eboos]

You'd think they'd argue that he was still a threat even on the ground since he still had his gun and was able to kill the guy

Surely that would have been the argument if the dead clerk was on trial.

 

[appraiser]

Once the threat of death of major injury went away (by the robber fleeing) the clerk did not have the right to act as Judge and Jury

Now can the robber be put on trial for possession of a firearm? Armed Robbery? Assault with a deadly weapon? Conspiracy (the act of planning the robbery)?

In theory yes, but it being California I don't think so.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

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.

Sometimes the clerks are owner-operators and it is their own money and livelihood on the line.

 

[ReluctantDecoy]

Let the criminal go despite him shooting someone dead because he was "protecting himself" from the repercussions of the felony crime he was committing? And then blame the dead shop attendant?

NOTHING MAKES SENSE ANYMORE!!@#@!#

 

[GaryO]

Once the threat of death of major injury went away (by the robber fleeing) the clerk did not have the right to act as Judge and Jury

Now can the robber be put on trial for possession of a firearm? Armed Robbery? Assault with a deadly weapon? Conspiracy (the act of planning the robbery)?

In theory yes, but it being California I don't think so.

So, if he's convicted and it's a big IF, what will he get. maybe a 10 year sentence with 2 served if he pinky swears not to do it again?

 

[Buck F]

Surely that would have been the argument if the dead clerk was on trial.

Absolutely. One would think a prosecutor might argue the same but it is CA after all. Plus, who knows what the video looks like, etc.

 

[appraiser]

@ReluctantDecoy my initial training, that goes back some 40 years now included that you don't shoot to protect property, and you can't use deadly force once the threat has removed itself by running away.

It would be nice to be able to chase the bad guy down and shoot him in the back for stealing a pack of smokes or a six pack, after they displayed a weapon in the process, but unfortunately that is not the way the law works in a supposed civilized society.

There is also the strong possibility that no matter how justified the shooting is, you are going to be arrested, cuffed, stuffed, held for arraignment, have to sit there until you come up with several hundreds of thousands of dollars for bail, find a competent attorney who can save you from PMITA prison, try to raise money for their retainer since you broke the bank raising bail money, etc etc etc.

Trying to teach people how to shoot and safely carry a concealed weapon is easy, beating it into their heads when they are legally allowed to use deadly force is a lot harder. I always suggest Massad Ayoob's book " In The Gravest Extreme" as required reading

 

[kalash]

I think some people need to learn to separate state laws vs their own morality. The latter is irrelevant, as none of us were involved.

As far as the former goes, in some states you can absolutely shoot a fleeing suspect to defend your property - CA is not one of those states (and neither is MA). However, even though the store clerk was legally in the wrong, the perp still bears the responsibility for shooting the clerk because the entire situation arose out of him breaking the law - I think this is what @CrackPot is getting at.

 

[kalash]

@ReluctantDecoy my initial training, that goes back some 40 years now included that you don't shoot to protect property, and you can't use deadly force once the threat has removed itself by running away.

It would be nice to be able to chase the bad guy down and shoot him in the back for stealing a pack of smokes or a six pack, after they displayed a weapon in the process, but unfortunately that is not the way the law works in a supposed civilized society.

There is also the strong possibility that no matter how justified the shooting is, you are going to be arrested, cuffed, stuffed, held for arraignment, have to sit there until you come up with several hundreds of thousands of dollars for bail, find a competent attorney who can save you from PMITA prison, try to raise money for their retainer since you broke the bank raising bail money, etc etc etc.

Trying to teach people how to shoot and safely carry a concealed weapon is easy, beating it into their heads when they are legally allowed to use deadly force is a lot harder. I always suggest Massad Ayoob's book " In The Gravest Extreme" as required reading

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!

 

[pastera]

Let the criminal go despite him shooting someone dead because he was "protecting himself" from the repercussions of the felony crime he was committing? And then blame the dead shop attendant?

NOTHING MAKES SENSE ANYMORE!!@#@!#

No but you can't just ignore self defense law simply because the person is a scumbag.

 

[Dench]

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.

When would it be inappropriate to shoot at the robber? There's a threshold there somewhere. Where do you think it is?

 

[Parker Schreiber]

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.

California changed its felony murder rules in 2019 to exclude exactly such scenarios. Quoting:

This bill would prohibit a participant in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of one of the specified first degree murder felonies in which a death occurs from being liable for murder, unless the person was the actual killer or the person was not the actual killer but, with the intent to kill, aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, solicited, requested, or assisted the actual killer, or the person was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life, unless the victim was a peace officer who was killed in the course of performing his or her duties where the defendant knew or should reasonably have known the victim was a peace officer engaged in the performance of his or her duties.​

Bill Text - SB-1437 Accomplice liability for felony murder.

 

[MaverickNH]

For anyone questioning my position here please spend some time here: Law of Self Defense

Back in the late 1990s, when SIG Arms Academy first opened to “public” training, I took what I recall was their inaugural Basic Pistol course, with a 3hr lecture on firearms law from Andrew Branca (the Law of Self Defense guy) Friday evening and an 8hr practical session Saturday with Bank Miller, former DEA Firearms Director. The situation in this case was made clear - if the attacker breaks off and retreats, you cannot use deadly force. We asked all kinds of what-ifs - what if the attacker still had his gun and turns back towards you, etc. The point made was there was the law as written and there was the situation at hand - who was recounting what story was important, as was what the evidence supported. Now evidence includes stationary cams and people capturing video, which makes it all the more tricky.

A recent study found only 1/3rd to 2/3rds of gun owners were aware of even major gun laws in their respective states. That figure probably drops to one in ten where any minimal training is/was required by state law and much less in Constitutional Carry states. It’s caveat emptor for gun owners - you own a gun, it’s on you to know the laws.

Personally, I have a Dirty Harry streak in me. “Do you feel lucky punk? Well, do ya?” If they do, it’s on them.

I’m taking my wife and eldest to SIG Handgun 101 in the Spring. While the class no longer meets MA requirements on the legalities of firearms, it will be interesting what they offer for NH resident WRT laws. I think they just give a disclaimer that it’s up to the student to deal with that aspect.

https://2amaryland.org/legislative/DocArchive/A_Nation_of_Cowards.pdf

”This is the article that changed George Will's mind on firearms ownership & the Second Amendment. He drew national attention to it in his November 15, 1993 Newsweek editorial. Where Will previously called for the repeal of the Second Amendment, he now recognizes that access to effective defense is indeed a right (& responsibility).”

 

[appraiser]

Florida has a very strong "stand your ground law", if someone was threatening me, or attacked me, or displayed a weapon then IMHO I am allowed to consider the use of deadly force to protect myself or those around me.... I'd drop someone in a heartbeat if they went after my dogs too

I'm safe in my house and someone is on my property, I may choose to arm myself discreetly and go ask why they are there, but I'd be hard pressed to open up on the person for being on the property.

Maybe it is just me, but I have always considered the firearm the last resort solution, I have pulled my weapon 3 times in 40 plus years, once was to cover a friend who was off duty who stopped to investigate something suspicious, the second was someone made a motion as if they were drawing on me after staring me down, ( they were not armed and made the motion anyway I had to assume they were armed), I leveled on them and they ran away ( this was on a MBTA Orange Line train ) and the final time was when a drunken woman was trying to force her way into our hotel room, I gave her ample opportunity to leave, I opened the door, the dogs pinned her against the opposite wall in the hallway, and when she looked up from the dogs being on top of her she saw I was pointing a gun at her and she sobered up rather quickly. Legally justified, but in hindsight I know my mistake was giving up cover by doing what I did)