"Trial in ’09 store clerk’s death opens" (Compliant victim shot dead)

[friendly_iconoclast]

http://articles.boston.com/2011-09-10/news/30139698_1_fatal-shooting-opening-statements-first-degree-murder

Trial in ’09 store clerk’s death opens
Jury shown video of man being shot in Jamaica Plain
September 10, 2011|By Brian R. Ballou, Globe Staff

Edward Corliss, 65, is accused of killing a store clerk after stealing $746.

Store clerk Surendra Dangol followed the demands of the gun-toting robber and quickly filled the suspect’s backpack with cash from the register. But despite his having offered no resistance and keeping his hands up high, Edward Corliss, a Hyde Park newlywed desperate for cash, shot him dead, prosecutors said.

Yesterday afternoon, nine men and six women serving on a Suffolk Superior Court jury watched a slow-motion video surveillance tape of the Dec. 26, 2009, shooting at a Tedeschi Food Shop in Jamaica Plain, including the moment that the 39-year-old Nepalese man was fatally shot by a suspect disguised with a wig, scarf, and heavy overcoat...

Now remember, class- that poor victim of society that's extracting an involuntary donation from you won't hurt you
unless you resist him. Obviously Dangol did something wrong that doesn't appear on the surveillance video...

(sarcasm mode to "Off")

[petronius]

1. A side-issue, but something that really bothered me at the time was how the

victim's daughter almost didn't get a visa to attend the funeral - kind of cold treatment from the embassy. Personally, I would have let the whole family immigrate (if they had still wanted to)...

[bluestateguy]

2. Of course, The robber wanted no witnesses

I will say this, if you personally object to resisting a robber with force then I think that should be your choice. But the law must allow people to defend themselves, including with a firearm, if they wish to do so.

[friendly_iconoclast]

3. But some here object to you *making* that choice.

Witness the recent threads about a Temple University student shooting a robber, after having been shot first.

You will also notice that none of the objectors were providing security in the students' neighborhood- or doing so
anywhere else, for that matter. They're perfectly willing to let you roll the dice with your life...

[gravity556]

4. But I was assured by several posters

in the Temple student threads that cooperating was your only safe bet-just give up the money and the piece of shit criminal won't hurt you!

Should be interesting to see what they say in here.

[ileus]

6. the Temple student was a rude, angry, impolite toter gunner cowboy wannabe.

[SteveM]

58. Still looks like a member of Peter and Gordon. nt

[Name removed]

15. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

33. awwww

Somebody didn't like seeing a request for substantiation. Tsk.

[SteveM]

59. LEOs where I lived said for years: "Cooperate, don't resist." Not anymore. nt

[ileus]

5. He gave his life for the greater good for criminals everywhere.

It's a chance you gotta take to show how civilized and peaceful you are...

[geckosfeet]

7. This thread is good example of accelerated de-evolution.

It has quickly devolved into nonsense. To be fair though, it did not have far to go.

[MyrnaLoy]

8. I notice that

none of the gun forum regulars are chastising this post as being anecdotal. Are only the posts you dislike anecdotal now?

[GreenStormCloud]

9. The post does prove that sometimes criminals will kill compliant victims. N/T

[MyrnaLoy]

10. once again

just anecdotal. Yet you don't seem to mind it. You do HOWEVER hate it when the misuse of a firearm is posted. I'll continue to post them though because I'll use a bit of your response, "The post does prove that sometimes legal gun owners will kill innocent victims. N/T"

I actually think I'll save your quote for future use.

[X_Digger]

12. One black swan disproves the statement that "all swans are white."

Had the OP posited that such events were more prevalent than any other situation, then your point would have some value.

Since he didn't..

[MyrnaLoy]

13. once again

you reinforce my theory that only misuses of guns are anecdotal. Your "good shooting" posts, or as we like to call them wet dreams, are indicative of what is happening every day and we should base our policy on said news stories. If so lets play. You find one good shooting story for one day. I'll take the same date in America and post 20 where a firearm was misused. Wanna do it? Come on bucko. If the story you're defending right now is important then lets prove it. Choose one day, I'll let you pick the date. I'll wait.

[X_Digger]

14. Feel free to propose public policy based on the news.

Of course, we'd need a new law to address all those white, suburban girls who are abducted- because based on the *coverage* of such events, they *must* be an epidemic, right?

*snort*

No, I'll take actual facts such as the FBI's UCR, or the DOJ's BJS. You feel free to try 'policy by press coverage'-- just don't expect rational people to go along with your little inanity.

[MyrnaLoy]

26. so no

you don't want to compare news stories based on one day's shootings? I can truly understand why you wouldn't want to.


"No, I'll take actual facts such as the FBI's UCR, or the DOJ's BJS." Except when it comes to "good shooting" posts in the gun forum which you won't condemn as anecdotal. Oh, you'll condemn the misuses of guns as anecdotal all day. Yup, I understand why you don't want to compare. The word Owned comes to mind.

[X_Digger]

30. You feel free to claim victory against a position I never took. *snort* n/t

[Atypical Liberal]

42. What would be the point in such a comparison.

Let's say one person every day in the country defends themselves with a firearm, while 300 people every day commit a crime with them.

So what?

What would be the policy implication? That because 300 people use guns to commit crimes, no one should have the right or ability to use them lawfully?

No.

[SteveM]

61. "compare news stories?" So, Myrna, how does MSM come down on gun-control?

How many MSM outlets favor strong gun-control/prohibition?

How many MSM outlets favor strong Second Amendment protections?

Give it your best guess. When you come up with your answer, post it, and we'll better understand "...why you wouldn't want to."

[Atypical Liberal]

41. Nope.

once again you reinforce my theory that only misuses of guns are anecdotal.

You are wrong. You just continue to misunderstand what an anecdote can and cannot do.

One black swan can disprove the claim that all swans are white. But coming up with one, or ten, or 50 black swans cannot allow one to make the claim that all swans are black.

Your "good shooting" posts, or as we like to call them wet dreams, are indicative of what is happening every day and we should base our policy on said news stories. If so lets play. You find one good shooting story for one day. I'll take the same date in America and post 20 where a firearm was misused. Wanna do it? Come on bucko. If the story you're defending right now is important then lets prove it. Choose one day, I'll let you pick the date. I'll wait.

NO.

You are completely missing the point.

The number of "good shootings" has no bearing on how common such shooting may or may not be, and no one is claiming such, because they are anecdotes!

It does not matter if there are one million bad uses of firearms to every one good use of firearms. What it shoes is that people can use firearms for good purposes, and consequently, they should be able to do so.

Just because there may be 300 criminal uses of firearms every day has absolutely no impact on what lawful people can and should be able to do with firearms.

All I need to show is a single case where someone has successfully used a firearm to defend themselves to show that people can do so. Whether countless other people use them for bad things does not change the former one iota.

[Atypical Liberal]

38. Exceptions disprove the rules, they do not make them.

once again just anecdotal. Yet you don't seem to mind it. You do HOWEVER hate it when the misuse of a firearm is posted. I'll continue to post them though because I'll use a bit of your response, "The post does prove that sometimes legal gun owners will kill innocent victims. N/T"

I actually think I'll save your quote for future use.

Again, you are not understanding the concept here.

You cannot use anecdotes to generalize. But you can use them to disprove a theory.

Many anti-gun people here have said that we should submit to even violent criminals rather than use deadly force against them. All it takes is one single example to demonstrate that this is a bad idea.

Whether 99% of violent criminals let their victims go unharmed after submitting is beside the point. All it takes is one single example, such as this one, where a criminal decides to kill his victim even after submitting, and you have your justification for assuming the worst in a self-defense situation.

What you can't do, however, is show 50 examples of people using rifles to commit murder and then claim that there is a rifle murder problem.

Exceptions disprove the rules, they do not make them.

[DWC]

53. There is nothing "anecdotal" about being dead, or raped, or...

it is highly personal. Of course I am concerned about the welfare of others. I can be sympathetic. I can be empathetic. But I can never actually feel their pain or know what goes through their minds in the final moments of life until I experience it for myself.

The only person who is always with me to defend me against violent criminals or crazies anytime, anywhere is ME. I choose the tools I use to defend myself and, unless I use those tools for criminal purposes, my choices are no one else's business.

Call it "anecdotal" or whatever you like. I call it one of my Unalienable Rights.

Semper Fi,

[rl6214]

23. I saw a post somewhere here today about an abduction

and I didn't chastise that as being anecdotal either. But then I'm also not the person here that likes to demand posters link to the internet the proof of their anecdotal story then when they don't, start calling them names like lobsterboy. (Sorry if I am not entirely clear here, I'm diabetic and my sugar is crashing right now)

[Atypical Liberal]

37. Ancedotes are useful for disproving a rule.

I notice that none of the gun forum regulars are chastising this post as being anecdotal. Are only the posts you dislike anecdotal now?

Well you see, there is a reason for that. Anecdotes only help the pro-gun side. Anecdotes are not data. But all it takes is one data point to disprove a theory.

Many Anti-gun folks around here claim that we should never use deadly force to defend ourselves from violent criminals. That instead, we should submit to their demands and hope that they will then safely let us go on our way.

All it takes is one single example to show that this is a terribly risky assumption to make, and that the consequences of making a mistake are dire.

Anti-gun folks will frequently try to use anecdotes to show generalities, and they cannot do that.

[spin]

11. I remember once when I lived in Tampa ...

a clerk at a Shell gas station one quarter of a mile from where I lived was killed after she fully cooperated with two robbers.

One day when I was driving home from work, a police car passed me. I stopped at the same Shell gas station to fill up my gas tank and noticed a patrol car parked in the lot. I thought nothing of it as its lights were not flashing. When I started to pump gas, I found the pump was not working. A police officer walked out of the station and told me that the pumps were disabled as the gas station had just been robbed.

The next day, I stopped at the station and talked to the clerk on duty who was a Muslim from Pakistan who I had often talked to before. He told me that a young individual had walked into the office and pointed a handgun at him and asked for the money in the register. The clerk told me that he gave it to him and his attitude told me that he thought it was no big deal.

When the police car passed me I was only a block from the Shell station. Had I been at the station five minutes earlier I would have been inside the station at the counter when the robber committed his crime. I would have had a S&W snub nosed .38 in my front pants pocket.

I have carefully considered what I would have done in the situation and I have decided that I would have simply observed the situation as it went down and memorized details about the robber and how he was dressed. Had the robber appeared high and/or mentally unstable and therefore extremely dangerous, I might have drawn my weapon and shot him. Of course had he shot the clerk, I would have shot him suspecting that I was next. I fully realize that I could have also been shot in the encounter.

Many may disagree with my thoughts on what I would have done, but in my opinion I am not a cop or a vigilante. My decision could be criticized as it is quite possible that the next time the robber decided to try a robbery, he might well have shot and injured the clerk and any innocent bystanders. I have absolutely no desire to be a hero and I carry a firearm mainly to protect myself and those I love.

I did have one other situation that I often think about. On the way to work on the graveyard shift I stopped at a Walgreens liquor store to buy some cigars. Two individuals were inside the store and one was acting very erratic and rushing around the store for no apparent reason. My situational awareness alarm went off.

One of the individuals was at the counter with a couple of purchases and told the clerk that he had left his wallet in his car. He asked me if I would like to check out while he went to his car. I politely declined and stepped back closer to an aisle. I placed my hand in my pocket on my snub nosed revolver and waited.

When the guy returned he paid for his purchases and left. I stayed for ten minutes and bullshitted with the clerk. I finally left and was late for work. I never mentioned the odd pair of individuals to the clerk and definitely never told him that I was legally armed. I have the opinion to this day that the clerk was glad that I stayed rather than checked out.

I honestly have no certainty that the two individuals planned to rob the store. On the other hand, they surely acted suspicious.

Had the guy at the counter pulled a firearm and robbed the store, once again I would have probably just observed unless I felt that the robber intended to shoot the clerk or had he done so.

I welcome any thoughts on my decisions.

[iverglas]

16. here is the surveillance video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kzrt_5DFq_I

Please identify the point at which the shopkeeper would have been able to pull a gun on the robber witout getting shot (by the time on the video and a description of how this could have been done).

Thank you.

[gejohnston]

17. I think you are missing the point.

The point was that the clerk was killed even though he showed no resistance.

[iverglas]

18. that's a point?

The point was that the clerk was killed even though he showed no resistance.

Looks kinda dull to me.

Did the clerk have a viable option in that case? Go beyond the gun option; did the clerk have any alternative to what he did, if he wished to survive?

Would any form of resistance have made it more likely that he would have survived?

Has anyone ever stated that complying with the demands made in the course of a crime guarantees survival unharmed?

No to both, I'd say.

There was nothing the clerk in that situation could have done to enable himself to survive unharmed.

And no one has ever suggested that any one choice guarantees survival unharmed in any situation.

Do note that in the case in question the offender was on parole from a previous murder conviction for which he had served 25 years and was by all accounts one very hardened criminal.

Circumstances do have an effect on cases.

[gejohnston]

19. yes

probably not. If it were up to me, I would pardon all of the non violent drug offenders, end the war on drugs. With the money saved we can rehabilitate who can be rehabilitated (the ones who are victims of circumstance like lacking hope etc.) With the prisons now mostly empty, warehouse the FASs for life. If they rob with a gun or steal millions with a pen like Ken Lay, or the Enron employees to delighted in the fact that grandma's electric bill going up was going to make them rich makes no difference. For a true civilized society, all sociopaths must be removed from society.

[TPaine7]

20. "Has anyone ever stated that complying with the demands made in the course of a crime guarantees

survival unharmed?"

You mean like in this thread ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x460088 )?

(See my post 11 if you need guidance.)

That theme is very prevalent on this board and in the arguments of rights opponents, though most are clever enough to put in hedging words. For example, here's my compilation of your relevant statements in one thread with your very clear take on the subject ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=453338&mesg_id=454170 ).

In short, YES. Some say it outright. Others are clever enough to simply imply it.

[iverglas]

21. I tells ya what

I'll believe what I find it to be reasonable to believe based on whatever facts present themselves.

You can pretend to believe anything you like.

Deal?

[TPaine7]

24. You can pretend that I missed your evasion of my direct answer to your question, if you must.

I guess the direct answer with supporting link to a thread where someone made the exact point in question (YESTERDAY!) didn't rise to your notice, while the secondary point of people like you merely implying the point did?

Now that's real pretense.

You can pretend not to be an evasive sophist, if you'd like, but I won't be a party to a dishonest deal.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TPaine7]

27. Yes, of course... Goddess. LOL!

[TPaine7]

28. You asked a question, got the wrong answer, ignored it, and then resorted to personal insult.

Wow.

That's just so impressive!

[iverglas]

31. so I'll say it again

with the necessary twist: you can pretend that your self-impressed pomposity is a substitute for civil discourse if you wish, but you may have noticed that few hereabouts are very interested.

Your links (what a library you have!) NEVER support your assertions, your assertions are ALWAYS misrepresentations of reality, and your insults fail to hit their target on every single occasion.

[TPaine7]

56. Yes. And you're the Goddess of Truth and Beauty. n/t

[iverglas]

22. as long as we're digging up victims using mobility devices

I happened to have been looking at one of my faves recently.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=128303

But when a mugger tried to grab a chain off her neck Friday, the wheelchair-bound 56-year-old pulled out her licensed .357 pistol and shot him, police said.

Johnson said she was in Harlem on her way to a shooting range when the man, identified by police as 45-year-old Deron Johnson, came up from behind and went for the chain.

"There's not much to it," she said in a brief interview. "Somebody tried to mug me, and I shot him."

But see my post 263 for the completer facts.

Got any theories about what would have happened in that one if the thug in the wheelchair hadn't had a gun?

[friendly_iconoclast]

29. It appears Ms. Johnson didn't meet *your* standards for having a gun

And worse, was a non-compliant victim.

Once again, the work of the criminal safety advocate goes unappreciated by the unwashed masses. I feel for you, I really do.

[iverglas]

32. actually, it is obvious

that the individual in question violated the terms of her permit to possess the gun, and used it in an unjustified, illegal and totally reckless manner.

There we are.

[gravity556]

34. Really gonna side with a criminal who tried to rob a woman in a wheelchair?

How...interesting.

[friendly_iconoclast]

35. That's not the only example of that. Here's another one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=275101

You need to understand that there's a first principle here: "The person with a gun is always wrong, until proven otherwise
beyond a reasonable doubt."

She does not explicitly articulate it, but it's there just the same. The two threads about people in wheelchairs illustrate
it perfectly.

[iverglas]

40. and here we have another example

of the retailing of false things.

Does one expect different?

Nope.

[iverglas]

39. really going to assert that kind of falsehood about me

with your face hanging out?

[gravity556]

57. What falsehood?

"really going to assert that kind of falsehood about me
Posted by iverglas
with your face hanging out?

You mean saying that you side with the criminal? Based off the post that I replied to (if you need a reminder, you said Got any theories about what would have happened in that one if the thug in the wheelchair hadn't had a gun?), you most certainly are on the side of the kind of scum who would attack a wheelchair bound woman. See, in the real world, amongst rational people, the individuals who initiate assaults on the disabled with the intent of robbing them are the "thugs", the individual who is not a piece of shit crook is, again, by the rational portion of society *not* hell bent for leather to push an agenda, generally referred to as the VICTIM. You seem to have it backwards, revelling in the the misfortune of the victims and rushing sympathetically to the defense of the piece of shit criminals. Charming and classy. Really. Your fellow Canadians should put up a monument and hold a parade in your honor.

[iverglas]

60. "See, in the real world, amongst rational people"

decent people don't present false dichotomies as if other people were bound by them.

So let's play you have two choices for supper (it's Big Brother): Jalapenos and Hard Boiled Eggs, Sardines and Seaweed.

You have a serious allergy to eggs, so you reject that option.

Does this really mean that you adore sardines?

Sadly for you, no.

you most certainly are on the side of the kind of scum who would attack a wheelchair bound woman

Only if you are prepared to say that everybody in the world who is allergic to eggs loves sardines.

Your allegation about me is as false as it is ugly.


Somebody who is already violating a rather significant public safety law and then recklessly uses a firearm in an attempt to harm another person in a public place despite having no grounds for any reasonable belief that they were at risk of serious injury or death ... well, that will be about the dictionary definition of "thug" for me.

How come we all don't give a crap what disadvantages some 15-year-old kid who tries to rob somebody may have suffered, but when it's a sharpshooter in a wheelchair trying to kill somebody for no good reason, that makes all the difference?

[friendly_iconoclast]

36. Illegal, yes. In an unjustified and totally reckless manner, no.

You have elided the inconvenient truth that Ms. Johnson was hospitalized after having the temerity to interrupt the involuntary contribution of her jewelry.

Have you offered your sage legal advice to the fellow that Ms. Johnson so churlishly ventilated in such an uncivilized manner?
If not, best hurry- there's still time for a civil action to be filed in New York State!

[iverglas]

43. are you congenitally unable to give a true representation of anything?

Ms. Johnson was hospitalized

The original link no longer functions, so we have several posters' reports of what it said:

she was taken to the hospital for minor injuries and released

Regular people do not describe going to hospital for a cut or scrape as being "hospitalized".

You know as well as I do that whatever these "minor injuries" were, they did not require treatment in hospital, and she was simply taken to hospital as a precautionary measure the way many people in such situations would be.

You have no idea what her "minor injuries" actually were, do you?

Maybe she broke a fingernail on her trigger finger. Who knows? Who knows whether the injury or injury resulted from the assault/robbery attempt or her response to it? Not you.

[friendly_iconoclast]

54. I realize that the higher cause requires the elision of violent assaults upon the disabled....

...and I wouldn't expect you to violate a first principle. So I'm not even disappointed with your reply.

[iverglas]

55. your Reader's Digest improve-your-vocabulary word for the day?

:boring:

Actually, too bad you don't really seem to have learned how to use it in a sentence.

I have a simple request for you.

If you don't have anything to say, please don't bother saying it to me.

Thank you.

[X_Digger]

44. Bullshit.

Did the terms of her permit specify that she could not use it for self-defense?

Was she carrying it all the time? If indications were so, I would expect charges to be filed.

By what measure do you claim that her actions were reckless?

[iverglas]

45. "Did the terms of her permit specify that she could not use it for self-defense?"

She lived in New York. What the fuck do you think?

Did you bother to read the facts at all?

But therein lies the problem, eh?

Allow somebody to go trucking around with a gun, AND YOU JUST NEVER KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO WITH IT.

Duh.

[X_Digger]

46. I do know the terms of her permit.. it does not address it.

Use of force laws are fairly clear in NYC.

Sec. 35.30, 4, 4(a)-
and he may use deadly physical force for such purpose when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to:
(a) Defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of deadly physical force;

Should you be able to reach a weapon when being presented with potentially deadly force, you are free to use it to stop the attack.

This has fuck-all to do with the permit. The laws surrounding the permit pertain to the *carrying* a gun, not under what circumstances one may *use* it.

What, you think there's a self-defense permit? That if you're not approved to use a certain weapon for self-defense, your use of it means you're fucked?

How asinine.

She was carrying the gun to go to the range-- Permit-approved purpose. The fact that she used it to defend herself is not within the scope of permit law.

[iverglas]

47. as I said

Johnson, who has been confined to a wheelchair since 2001 when she suffered a dislocated hip and a herniated disk, has a permit for the handgun that allows her to keep the firearm in her home and take it to shooting ranges.

If you allow people to go trucking around with guns, you never know what they're going to do with them.

Pretty easy to claim you're on the way to a shooting range when you shoot somebody, ain't it?

[X_Digger]

48. So.. no charges filed.. do you still assert it was illegal for her..

to defend herself with a firearm carried on the way to the range? No? Glad we got that cleared up. So what was she doing that you think was illegal?

Pretty easy to claim you're on the way to a shooting range when you shoot somebody, ain't it?

Ahh, so now she's lying, eh?

Bob, duck, and weave. Not just useful in boxing, I see.

[petronius]

49. I would guess from the description that she had a Premises License,

which would allow her to transport the handgun to a range, but unloaded and in a locked container. It doesn't sound from the write-up of the incident like she adhered to those conditions (unless she can unlock two boxes and load a pistol a lot faster than I can imagine).

PREMISES LICENSE: IS A RESTRICTED TYPE OF LICENSE. It is issued for your RESIDENCE or BUSINESS. The Licensee may possess a handgun ONLY on the premises of the address indicated on the front of the license. Licensees may also transport their handguns and ammunition in SEPARATE LOCKED CONTAINERS, DIRECTLY to and from an authorized range, or hunting location. HANDGUNS MUST BE UNLOADED while being transported.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/permits/handgun_licensing_information.shtml

Interesting locking message on that old thread; seems like an unwritten rule that fell by the wayside (but might be good to revive)...

[X_Digger]

50. Not sure when the separate container law took effect. This incident was in 2006.

I know that they didn't always have to be separate (ammo and gun), but not sure when that change was made.

[petronius]

51. Yes, good point. I actually meant to include the

things-can-change-in-five-years caveat, but got distracted fiddling with the format. Sorry...

[iverglas]

52. thank you

I guess I assumed there were conditions attached to the permit to transport, as there are in Canada.


There were a load of, um, arbitrary rules in the olden days. ;)

"Arbitrary" not implying that they were not wise or appreciated!

One practice that we might well consider bringing back is the weekly "guns in the news" thread where all newsworthy events (as compared to think pieces, e.g.) were to be collected rather than being scattered around and kept going in perpetuity.

And of course there was the moderator's Tuesday bad joke thread ...

[aikoaiko]

62. Possibly at 0:38. The murderer walks behind the touch screen and cant see victim's hands well

I realize you'll be doubtful that it could have been done successfully, but the touch screen provided some cover and the element of surprise might have been to the victim's advantage.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.