Ridiculous self defense acceptance by DA

the answer lies here:
Becton ran for election for a full term for District Attorney.[13] In the June 2018 primary election, Becton won a majority of the vote, winning the contest outright and pre-empting a November runoff.[14] The Mercury News noted that her election victory made her "the first African-American and first woman to be elected DA in the office’s roughly 160-year history".[14] Becton's campaign received support from a consortium of social justice groups, Democratic activists, and wealthy funders including George Soros.[15][16]
 
On the ground or not, the robber was still such a threat that he was able to shoot back. A self defense case where the other person has a gun is completely different than when a person has a bat, knife etc and distance minimizes or negates the threat. Distance doesn’t make an armed person a non threat
Agree that an armed person is a threat however per the article the clerk pursued the guy in order to continue shooting at him - that's where the problems come in.
Had the clerk shot Jackson and Jackson fell right there with the gun still in his possession then that is a continued threat giving the clerk the legal right to continue his use of deadly force.
If you take the articles account at face value where the clerk pursued Jackson who was attempting to flee with the merchandise then the act of pursuit extinguishes his right of legal deadly force since the pursuit does not meet avoidance or reasonableness.

Jackson however has lost innocence by the fact that he initiated the initial deadly force attack - given the lack of clear information in the article an inference can be made that the DA had information leading him to believe that Jackson regained innocence when he attempted for flee and the clerk then chased him for the purpose of continuing the use of deadly force.
I don't agree with Jackson not being charged with at least second-degree murder (California homicide law - 6 crimes you could be charged with)

I haven't watched Andrew's video so I don't know if he introduces information not contained in the article
 
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.
Only in CA. That would’ve been a good shoot in Texas.

I think the store clerk was morally justified
 
Only in CA. That would’ve been a good shoot in Texas.
I'm not sure since Texas' property defense law isn't one I've looked into but I thought it was personal property not commercial (not that that should matter, if someone robs you with deadly force, you should be able simply put one behind the ear to discourage the next DINDU from trying out their personal rap star career)
I think the store clerk was morally justified
Concur
 
There is a reason why bankers are told to just hand over the money during a robbery, someone else's money can be replaced, shot bullets cannot be taken back.
True, but there is more.

Banks virtually always have working cameras, multiple manners in which silent alarms are triggered and the full force of local, state and federal investigation if they are robbed. The chances of getting away with a typical "I have a gub" [classic movie reference] bank job are very slim. Unlike bank jobs, they spare little effort in tracking down the perp even if the job is completed without any shooting on injury.

Bank employees are never hard working immigrants whose lively hood, and ability to support their family, is threatened if the bank's cash is taken. Ever notice how these things tend to happen at independent and not chain convenience stores?
 
""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.""

if this is their standard then anyone can steal anything at any time
 
And you obviously have spent too much time patting yourself on the back and not enough time reading what people have written - so GFY.
So, instead of compiling an adult response to criticism, you come up with that. Jackass.


My posts were based on the information contained in the linked article and were posted before Andrew Branca's video was available.
I also caveated my position as evidenced in my response to jkelly1229.
It isn't until this post that Branca's video was even available (but I haven't yet watched it so I don't know what other information he presents that was not available in the linked article)
And in that post I made it clear that my position was based on the limited information given and only that information spelled out why I held that position (which is correct)
Good for you. That notwithstanding, your posts were wrong. And obviously so to anyone who had actually read any of Branca's material. Also interesting that you continue to insist that you're correct, despite your selected expert stating opinions to the contrary. As I noted before, you're a jackass.


Please expound on how you came up with this and specifically what you mean by it.
What part of "My speculation" are you having a problem with? As noted (and quoted by you), it's "speculation".
speculation
noun​
  1. Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition.
  2. A conclusion, opinion, or theory reached by conjecture.
Jackass.

If you feel vindicated on a win or whatever makes you rub yourself to sleep, have at it
And a second juvenile response to criticism. Seriously, if you can't argue as an adult, consider not playing.


Given the information in the article my point stands that even though Jackson had robbed the clerk, the clerk looses the right to deadly force as soon as Jackson flees the scene. If the clerk gives chase in order to continue the use of deadly force then the clerk opens himself up to legal action for the unjustified use of deadly force.
Even police are not allow to just shoot you if you are fleeing.
Again, go back and refer to the Branca video at 44:50. Your analysis is clearly incorrect per your selected expert. It's no excuse that you started reciting nonsense before his analysis was available. It was wrong then and it was wrong now, as was apparent to anyone who has read his book.
 
Agree that an armed person is a threat however per the article the clerk pursued the guy in order to continue shooting at him - that's where the problems come in.
Had the clerk shot Jackson and Jackson fell right there with the gun still in his possession then that is a continued threat giving the clerk the legal right to continue his use of deadly force.
If you take the articles account at face value where the clerk pursued Jackson who was attempting to flee with the merchandise then the act of pursuit extinguishes his right of legal deadly force since the pursuit does not meet avoidance or reasonableness.

Jackson however has lost innocence by the fact that he initiated the initial deadly force attack - given the lack of clear information in the article an inference can be made that the DA had information leading him to believe that Jackson regained innocence when he attempted for flee and the clerk then chased him for the purpose of continuing the use of deadly force.
I don't agree with Jackson not being charged with at least second-degree murder (California homicide law - 6 crimes you could be charged with)

I haven't watched Andrew's video so I don't know if he introduces information not contained in the article

We both agree is risky and difficult to base opinions off news articles. Even if the facts are accurate, the articles lack the necessary detail to state an opinion we’d stand behind.

The pursue aspect reminds me of Zimmerman and Saint Trayvon martin. The media made such a big deal out of Zimmerman following Saint Trayvon. It’s not illegal to follow someone, so Zimmerman may have been doing something foolish but it wasn’t illegal nor did it make him the aggressor and thus no ability to claim self defense. In this case, was the clerk following in an non aggressive manner or was he pursuing to shoot? The article doesn’t help and maybe even video of the scene wouldn’t help.

If I were a prosecutor, I’d error on the side of the clerk in this case and take it to trial. We may not be able to know what the clerk was thinking, his motivation, but we know the robber initiated the entire thing so I’m not giving the benefit of the doubt to him, I’d make him show defense at a trial.
 
True, but there is more.

Banks virtually always have working cameras, multiple manners in which silent alarms are triggered and the full force of local, state and federal investigation if they are robbed. The chances of getting away with a typical "I have a gub" [classic movie reference] bank job are very slim. Unlike bank jobs, they spare little effort in tracking down the perp even if the job is completed without any shooting on injury.

Bank employees are never hard working immigrants whose lively hood, and ability to support their family, is threatened if the bank's cash is taken. Ever notice how these things tend to happen at independent and not chain convenience stores?

I’d also venture to guess the times someone is shot in a bank robbery vs gas station/convenience store robbery, is SUBSTANTIALLY less. The average a**h*** who robs a gas station or convenience store is much more likely to shoot. Also banks hav many people in them at all times, the clerks at gas stations are usually alone so shooting them eliminates all witnesses
 
Watched Branca's video
California has an outlier citizen's arrest statute that would take this into felony murder territory. That statute allowed the clerk to use deadly force to apprehend Jackson. However I believe since Jackson was downed from a hit to the leg, the continued attack from the clerk was likely unreasonable force therefore giving the DA the excuse needed to sweep the case.

So the clerk may have been within his rights to pursue Jackson, he paid an awful price for a few dollars and pride.
 
So I hold up a bank. As I am fleeing, the police start shooting at me. I return fire and kill a police officer.
I am arrested and at the end of the trial I win because my counsel said I was defending myself.
What in the Holy hell is going on in California's injustice system?
police can use lethal force to stop someone from fleeing, the plebs don't.
 
police can use lethal force to stop someone from fleeing, the plebs don't.
California limits the use of deadly force against fleeing suspects more than other states:

Quoting:

(B) To apprehend a fleeing person for any felony that threatened or resulted in death or serious bodily injury, if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless immediately apprehended. Where feasible, a peace officer shall, prior to the use of force, make reasonable efforts to identify themselves as a peace officer and to warn that deadly force may be used, unless the officer has objectively reasonable grounds to believe the person is aware of those facts.​
In defense of others "Plebs" must show that the threat of bodily harm is imminent, that lesser force would not suffice, and the retreat doctrine does not apply.
 
Back
Top Bottom