Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

GreenStormCloud

(12,072 posts)
Tue Sep 25, 2012, 03:23 PM Sep 2012

Is this shooting self-defense?

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/09/store_clerk_shoots_robbery_sus.html


SNIP
Police were called at 9:54 a.m. to the Mini Mart at 17801 Euclid, where officers found a man with gunshot wounds to the abdomen, arm and leg, Sgt. Sammy Morris said.

SNIP

The man had argued with the clerk, who was in a bullet-proof booth. The man kicked in the door to the booth and went inside. The clerk grabbed a handgun and fired multiple times.

The man was not armed, Morris said.

The clerk, whose name was not released, was arrested on suspicion of felonious assault and having a gun after a felony conviction.

SNIP


This one is interesting. The weapons charge and the shooting charge will be separate offenses.

The clerk was a convicted felon and had a gun so that one is obvious.

But even convicted felons are allowed to defend themselves. He is in a bullet-proof booth and some enraged guy kicks the door in. At that point I would think that the clerk should be able to defend themselves exactly the same as if somebody kicked in the door to their house. It is forcible illegal entry to an occupied place.

Unless other details come to light, I would let him walk on the assault charge and give him a suspended sentence on the gun charge. He is trying to live an honest productive life in a high-risk job.

His boss needs to put in a much stronger door.
6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Is this shooting self-defense? (Original Post) GreenStormCloud Sep 2012 OP
One still has the right to preserve life. ileus Sep 2012 #1
Based only on the very little info in the article, ManiacJoe Sep 2012 #2
This message was self-deleted by its author AnotherMcIntosh Sep 2012 #3
Sounds like legitimate SD, on the surface. Starboard Tack Sep 2012 #4
I guess if a guy- digonswine Sep 2012 #5
I lean in your general direction on this.nt Eleanors38 Sep 2012 #6

ileus

(15,396 posts)
1. One still has the right to preserve life.
Tue Sep 25, 2012, 03:33 PM
Sep 2012

And let's face it, people will do whatever it takes to remain alive.

That being said, we need the tape to determine what caused the incident.

ManiacJoe

(10,136 posts)
2. Based only on the very little info in the article,
Tue Sep 25, 2012, 03:59 PM
Sep 2012

it would seem to be self-defense. The arrest for "felonious assault" would suggest that there are other details not included in the article.


Response to GreenStormCloud (Original post)

Starboard Tack

(11,181 posts)
4. Sounds like legitimate SD, on the surface.
Tue Sep 25, 2012, 04:22 PM
Sep 2012

Too few details to determine at this point. Maybe the two guys had some history. Maybe the gun didn't belong to the clerk, but the store.

digonswine

(1,485 posts)
5. I guess if a guy-
Tue Sep 25, 2012, 04:22 PM
Sep 2012

is in a small area and some dink forces his way in by kicking down a door, there would be no reasonable expectation of retreat or avoidance. I am not exactly pro-gun, but I would defend myself with one in this case, as I understand it.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Is this shooting self-def...