What do you think of this clerks reaction in this shooting?

You follow through until the threat has been eliminated. Eliminated can manifest into evasion, death, surrendering, etc.

Once it turns into a gunfight, I don't think it is over until one participant has completely fled the scene, or stopped moving and dropped the gun. They could always fire over their shoulder, or turn and fire.
 
Did the GG in this case get charged? My understanding is that he did not. As I said....It is easy to play Monday morning QB, but the BD lost and the GG went home. All is well.

The video is difficult to tell, yes the BG is headed for the door, but looks as if he is running at a 90 degree angle to the GG. I also can't tell if the BG dropped the gun. As far as I'm concerned, if the BG is still armed and moving he remains a threat.
 
The issue isn't how long one has lived in Massachusetts, but rather whether one intends to continue living in Massachusetts, or one of the other 49 states, all of which have pretty much the same rule on this point. Neither is the issue whether one agrees or disagrees with the rule or feel that it denies one the opportunity to achieve true "justice."

The reality, rather, is that in this state (and virtually all others), the privilege of using deadly force is limited to the necessity of self-defense and the necessity of self-defense ends when the bad guy turns tail and runs. The next shot you fire is not for defense but retribution, and retribution will land you in jail. Fact of life, and just about as important to learn as tap-rack-bang.

First off the prosecutor has to make the decision as to whether or not to press charges. In many states (other than MA) they wont. That brings me to point B, you also need a jury that would be in agreement that what the clerk did was anything other than self defense. We have no idea how the witnesses feel about this. There are many factor at play.

None of us truly know how we will really react until faced with such a situation; however I'm pretty sure that ANYONE that is put into a life or death situation won't be even remotely thinking about what the law is.
 
While I agree that post-hoc criticism can have its flaws if it ignores the exigencies of the moment, the fact of the matter is that if you don't know enough to stop shooting once the aggressor begins to flee, you'll spend Monday morning in the clink. This should be a major element of any self-defense training curriculum.

you can have all the training in the world. when your life is directly being threatened, if you dont overreact your the one thats going to be liable to end up dead.

you dont meet deadly force with just barley enough deadly force. i wouldnt stop shooting at the person until they were no longer a threat, i.e. the gun was no longer in the persons hand.
 
The issue isn't how long one has lived in Massachusetts, but rather whether one intends to continue living in Massachusetts, or one of the other 49 states, all of which have pretty much the same rule on this point. Neither is the issue whether one agrees or disagrees with the rule or feel that it denies one the opportunity to achieve true "justice."

The reality, rather, is that in this state (and virtually all others), the privilege of using deadly force is limited to the necessity of self-defense and the necessity of self-defense ends when the bad guy turns tail and runs. The next shot you fire is not for defense but retribution, and retribution will land you in jail. Fact of life, and just about as important to learn as tap-rack-bang.

Turning tail and running does not mean anything. I have these things called arms. They have lots of joints and I can contort them in all kinds of neat ways. This gives me the ability to manipulate a firearm while its pointed to the side, above, or even BEHIND me. Yes, these wonderful appendages give me the ability to discharge a weapon in any direction I choose. All while these things sprouting from my ass let me move in just about any direction I choose.

Even more pressing though is you opinion that this guy had time to think of doing something else, let alone actually do something else. Have you actually watched the video? Cause the pertinent part, the shooting, lasted about 2.5 seconds. The actual time the GG spent firing barely amounted to a single second. Do you really expect someone to do a full 180 from engaging a target, to reassessing a target as a non threat, then discontinue firing? Can you even ascertain someones intentions in less than a second?

This isn't Monday Morning QB'n here, this is micro managing 2.5 seconds of a deadly situation where some is trying to kill you. I can only hope that one day you realize just how literally impossible what your saying is.

[rolleyes]
 
Now, let's understand something. This isn't a political discussion, where folks get up and spout off about how they think things ought to be. It is, I had thought, a discussion where one observe's a scenario and then analyzes it to see if the shooter's conduct fits within the rules of self-defense -- sort of important to those who carry -- ultimately for the purpose of informing ourselves and others about what we can do and what we can't do (at least without getting indicted ourselves).

Suggesting to folks who may not know better, and who may take your advice seriously, that you can legally keep popping away at a bad guy who is beating feet away from the scene is not a helplful (or nice) thing to do.

I understand where you're coming from and I would certainly agree with the adrenaline flowing one could go too far and become the aggressor instead of the victim. However, in this case I think the good guy acted appropriately. Consider that he was shot at and returned fire three times in what was probably about 1.5 seconds. To me that's him responding to the threat appropriately. Had he left the store and shot the robber, then that would be another issue.

Also I'm not talking politics--I'm talking about survival skills.

Don't take this the wrong way, I'm not calling you point of view dumb or wrong; I agree it's a worthwhile discussion for those that carry.
 
Last edited:
Suggesting to folks who may not know better, and who may take your advice seriously, that you can legally keep popping away at a bad guy who is beating feet away from the scene is not a helplful (or nice) thing to do.

The whole thing happened in the blink of an eye. If we apply a reasonable person standard, IMO a reasonable person would have shot this guy several times. You act as though he chased the guy down the street- and that clearly didn't happen here.

-Mike
 
Last edited:
The whole thing happened in the blink of an eye. If we apply a reasonable person standard, IMO a reasonable person would have shot this guy several
times. You act as though he chased the guy down the street- and that clearly didn't happen here.

-Mike

+1 He fled the store in about 1.5 seconds while his arms were flailing around. You don't know for certain if the BG is trying to get a shot off or not while he is moving. The clerk didn't get charged with anything.

I am sure if he was in MA he might have but hey that state is as f-ed up as some of it's sheeple that live in it.
 
+1 He fled the store in about 1.5 seconds while his arms were flailing around. You don't know for certain if the BG is trying to get a shot off or not while he is moving. The clerk didn't get charged with anything.

I am sure if he was in MA he might have but hey that state is as f-ed up as some of it's sheeple that live in it.

Right. The BG could have been repositioning or trying to find cover in order to return fire.
 
Maybe it should, but at the moment it doesn't. The difference could have a big impact on your future.

The difference also has an impact on my reaction.

When I'm King, the crime rate will plummet. Mostly because so many things will no longer be crimes, but also because punishments for criminals will become much more severe.
 
Back
Top Bottom