Armed robber who was chased will NOT be charged for murder

Maybe not murder, but should be charged with a Felon possessing a Gun and firing a gun with intent.

 

Location, location, location: California. In most other jurisdictions, death during commission of a violent felony would result in a 2nd degree murder or manslaughter being charged, at the very least.

We're moving towards the European & Canandian models. I remember a story from London 20+ years ago. A violent home invader was neutralized by the resident, who used a decorative sword to disable the trespasser. The resident was charged & jailed for "being a menace to burglars."

 

deleted

 

In some states, if 3 perps rob someone and the one perp with a gun kills someone, they all have gotten life sentences in some scenarios.

 

In some scenarios, yes, but shooting a fleeing thief in the back can be problematic. Its not considered self defense, and sometimes you'll get away with it but sometimes you don't

 

Agreed

 

Let's remember, this wasn't merely just a burglary. This was an armed robbery. And the robber still had a gun in his hands when he was being chased.

Let me ask a question. What do you think police would do if they were chasing close behind a suspect who had just committed a robbery, they told the robber to stop but he was not stopping, and the robber had a gun in his hands? What should police do in that situation?

 

According the prosecutor's logic on this one, he could not be charged with "firing the gun with intent", because it was "self defense" and he had the right to fire that gun.

 

I agree, but I would give the storekeeper complete transactional immunity and consider the actions of the armed robber to be within the transactional environment

 

Stop and contact a Menal Help therapist for the Victim.

 

The right to shoot someone in self-defense depends on a clear, present and imminent threat.
If there is some altercation where someone creates such a threat, you have the right to shoot him.
Once he disengages - runs away - the threat is over.

You do not, post facto, have the right to chase someone down and shoot them.

Kyle Rittenhouse. Shot three guys chasing him. Self-defense.

 

You have no right to fire a gun you illegally possessed in the first place.

 

If you think you have same authority and same duties as police, then you should probably not be carrying a gun. Anyone who has taken concealed carry class, or educated him/herself on the matter, knows that owning a gun does NOT turn you into a police officer.

Shooting a fleeing thief in the back is problematic, and that is a fact. This guy lost his life because of his mistake, but clearly you leaned nothing from it.

He is dead, so he can enjoy his immunity in the hereafter.

 

As did I. CA is a shithole full of shitheads.

 

The police would beg to differ.

(You think if police are chasing someone who just committed an armed robbery and the suspect is running away and has a gun in their hands, police can't shoot until that person points the gun at police?)

 

YOU are not the police.
YOUR right to shoot someone rests on the threat to you. If the person is running away, he is not a threat. If he turns to shoot, that changes.
YOU do not have the right to chase someone down.
.

 

So in other words, you are claiming there is and should be double standards for the police, in this situation. That police should have been permitted to shoot in some situations like this, but not other people.

I think that is naive, and is clearly in opposition to police training. If an individual already has a gun in their hands, it does not take much time at all for them to be able to turn and shoot. It is unreasonable to expect the person giving chase would have adequate reaction time to be able to immediately respond and protect themselves. If police had to wait until such a person was actually turned around and pointing the gun at them, before they could shoot, it would make it too dangerous to pursue that person. When someone is running trying to chase someone else over an extended period of time, that also makes it more difficult to constantly keep an eye on their movements and immediately be able to react.

This is one of those false assumptions that it is common for the public to hold. What you do not realize is that your assumption is unrealistic in real life.

 

The law allows the police to shoot the "fleeing felon" as part of their duty to protect the public.
This does not apply to your right to shoot someone in self-defense.

Irrelevant to a discussion re: individual self-defense.

And, as I said, if you're standing there and he turns to shoot at you, you can shoot him. No question.

The right to self-defense does not include "giving chase" - unless, say, the person in question grabbed your kid or somesuch.
Otherwise, if YOU have a weapon and YOU chase someone running from you, then YOU are the threat and YOU can be legally shot.

I am not sure why this is so difficult for you to understand.

 

Not every area has a police force. You understand that, don't you?

 

I think the one chasing him was breaking the law, so this is definitely a gray area - though I think I would of still tried to charge him with murder

 

This does nothing to address, much less negate, anything I said.