Armed robber who was chased will NOT be charged for murder

This is kind of a bizarre story.

A robber had just committed a robbery with a gun. While outside trying to run away, the robber was chased by the store clerk and shot in the leg. The robber shot back, killing the store clerk.

The robber is NOT going to be charged with murder. The authorities in California, one hour inland from the San Francisco Bay Area, have decided what the robber did was "self defense".

A California clerk was fatally shot by a robbery suspect, authorities say. The suspect won't be charged with murder. (nbcnews.com), David K. Li, Donna Mendell, December 1, 2022

Ronald Jackson Jr., 20, was initially booked on suspicion of armed robbery and homicide in connection to the slaying of James Williams, 36, at a Chevron gas station in Antioch, California.

So it appears the prosecutor's office is sending a message that it's not okay to shoot armed robbers who are trying to get away? Or at least that the robber has a right to shoot back in self defense, if he is in the process of running away and being chased.
And will this concept apply to police chasing the suspect too?

What do you think about this? Is it wacky progressive insanity, or do armed robbers really do have some level of right to self defense, in some situations?

 

I think the robber was being chased. He was shot in the leg. He shot back. Self defense.

 

So if police shoot a fleeing robber who is holding a gun?

 

nope-=self defense is not available when you cause the incident through felonious activity

 

the robber is also guilty of felony murder. decades ago, if three men robbed a bank and a guard killed one bank robber, the other two would get the death penalty for felony murder. This mope should get at least a life sentence

 

I never agreed with the legal concept of "felony murder". Or at least not the way the concept was often applied.

I'm glad to see the authorities in California not embracing the notion of "felony murder". But, I think the decision went beyond just that. Into questionable legal territory, even in my opinion.

 

California loves the poor, helpless criminals. One of the MANY reasons I escaped that crazy state 6 years ago!

 

Progressives on the Left are generally more sympathetic to the criminal, kind of subconsciously viewing property owners and police is "oppressors".
Southern-style American conservatives, on the other hand, are totally merciless on criminals and always seem to be looking for any excuse to be extra harsh and punitive on them.

In my personal opinion, most conservatives are too harsh, merciless, strict and "authoritarian", and don't seem to understand the nuances of individual liberties when it comes to criminals or people who break laws. But a big section of those on the Left these days seem to be totally off the rails bonkers and wacky.

I mean what ever happened to the classical liberal, moderate liberal, on the Left?
Classical liberals were a response to the over-punitive nature of conservatives, but the latest generation of the Left seems to have gone into a social-revolutionary fervor, almost a like some sort of codified anarchy.

I think what I am saying is that human nature on this type of issue has a tendency to sway to extremes and want to pick a side, one or the other. It takes a little bit more mental effort to be able to see things in terms that are not all black and white.

I don't think we as a society have really come to a consensus on who exactly should have rights in every type of situation. We pass laws without really thinking about their implications, in certain types of situations.

 

I'm a "southern style" conservative that was born and raised in New York City, has lived from MA to CA, NH to VA, Germany to Iraq, UK to FL, and more. I like the fact that all the videos of flash mobs are from blue states, all the videos of thieves ripping off stores without interference, and all the stories of criminals being set free come from outside the safe, sane South. I'm so glad I retired to TEXAS, WHERE FREEDOM LIVES!

 

The shooter was not police. The shooter was some guy whom this robber had tried to steal from and now he was being chased and was in danger. It's not a "surrender to police and I will be in jail but alive" type of situation.

 

Why should police have been allowed to shoot but not the store owner?

Why the double standard? And when exactly should that double standard exist?

And suppose you say police should not have been allowed to shoot. Well, what if the criminal who had just committed armed robbery was getting away and there was no other way to stop them other than shooting them in the leg?
Should police just let them escape in that situation, and hope they are able to eventually find the robber later?
And what exact types crimes should police be allowed to do it when the suspect is getting away?
If not for armed robbery, than certainly for multiple murder, you would agree? (Which was not the case in this story, but I'm just trying to see where you're drawing the line in the sand)

 

In this situation I disagree.

 

We love our cops. Great guys and gals that we love to see and talk with.

 

there is a good public policy ground from preventing an armed felon from claiming self defense because he created the situation. Furthermore he should be charged with felony murder. It is a clear cut case of that

 

The district attorney on the case, Diana Becton, is a black woman.

It appears that both the robber and the store clerk were also black.

 

Sorry but thieves should be somewhat afraid. It's a good deterrent. I don't think he should get charged with murder. He should get negligent manslaughter charges for illiciting situation that required this. The clerk already paid for his actions. Neither was entirely innocent in this case but considering that California has made it so that the shop owners have no recourse for this sort of thing and their businesses are under threat, I am inclined to sympathize with them even more in this case. If I knew the police would actually do something about the theft, I would find what the clerk did completely unwarranted.

 

Police have the authority to chase felons or suspected felons.

I understand and agree with assigning blame to the criminal when someone is killed during the process of the crime they were committing. But it is different when the victim chases the criminal, shooting. The victim doesn't have the authority to track down the criminal. And the criminal is and should be in fear of his life....the citizen could very well be meaning to kill the guy. And actually was trying to. Citizens can't act like cops . They can defend themselves and their property. But hunting down a criminal with a gun is not lawful.

 

Sufficient practice allows one shot accuracy. Choose your weapon well and one shot combined with a proper skill level means no one needs to chase the bad guy... just cart him/her away.

 

If the clerk chased the robber down the street shooting and killed him (instead of being killed himself) he would be arrested...no matter what state he was in. I don't think the decision was "liberal progressive" but a common law across the spectrum.

 

And your point is?

By the way, murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. The clerk shot at him, he shot back in self-defense. He was running away, the clerk chased him and shot at him. If the robber had not been running away and shot the clerk on the premises, it would be considered murder.

 

Here is example of something similar that happened in OK. I hate it that the Uncle of the dead teen....the one who instigated the crime...wasn't charged with homicide...but the victim of theft went beyond his boundries.
https://www.fox23.com/news/charges-filed-in-fireworks-stand-robbery/560083596/

 

Not charging him with murder is just more proof of Leftist stupidity.

 

We are not talking about tracking them down later after the crime has been committed.
We are talking about chasing them down immediately after the crime has been committed, when the store owner has just seen that person commit the crime and they are trying to get away.

The crime wasn't merely just a theft, it was armed robbery. That is a much more serious crime. It's pretty much equivalent to someone threatening to kill someone else unless they cooperate.

(Although maybe you would try to argue that because the criminal did not shoot the clerk, the clerk "owes" it to the criminal not to chase the criminal down and shoot them?)

I think those who assume police are always going to be able to track down criminals some time later after the crime are being naive. Especially if the robber is wearing a mask. The only way to catch them is at the same time of the crime. And despite what people might think, crimes can be very quick and the criminal will be long gone by the time police are able to respond.

I don't see why you would think a criminal like that would deserve legal protections when a store worker chases them but not when police chase them.

 

Self defense. The robber disengaged and the clerk chased him.
Same setup as Rittenhouse in Kenosha.

 

Shooting a fleeing robber in the back is always a bad idea and can land you in prison. The robber was in process of committing a crime, and that can change things, but shooting robbers in the back is never a good idea.

The link below has some examples where people shot a fleering robber in the back, and in some examples charges were pressed, and in some where they were not. I would not push my luck.

Is It Legal To Shoot a Fleeing Burglar?
https://www.usacarry.com/can-one-shoot-fleeing-robber/
The question of whether it’s legal to shoot a fleeing burglar is thorny, as it isn’t clear. Nearly every state in the union allows for use of lethal force to defend one’s self (or others) against someone who poses a real threat to their life or of serious bodily harm. Most states also allow for a person to use force to stop a felony in process.

To use lethal force, a person has to have a reasonable belief that they are in danger. A burglar, trying to flee, might not actually pose such a danger.

One of the few states allowing for using lethal force over mere property is Texas, where lethal force can be used in some circumstances to stop property crimes such as a robbery, burglary or other theft, including at night. In fact, the laws in question were passed shortly before the Joe Horn shooting, which factored directly into that case.

In most states, that puts a burglar fleeing the scene in a gray area. The potential for the threat is there, given the right circumstances, but claiming “self-defense” after shooting in the back can be tenuous