Dissecting a Murder

[imp]

News of this sort of shooting rarely is publicly displayed. Yet, various researchers conclude it happens many hundreds of times annually in America.

Not interested in debating the moral aspects, or personal firearms possession philosophies. Consider the overall circumstances, and the decision made by the gun owner. Unknowns here include: number of persons present, general attitude and demeanor of the robber, amount of "gun smarts" possessed by the shooter, depth of training and his overall understanding of the implications.

Here's what I see. The District Attorney will be put under pressure by his Mayor and likely many others who view recent SCOTUS decision blocking Chicago's ban on handgun ownership as personally intrusive. He will in the very least, HAVE to charge the shooter with Discharge of a Firearm within City Limits. He may charge him with murder. If that, he will contend this: robber was masked. Therefore robber feared identification after his escape: he PLANNED to escape, intending to harm no one, merely get away with some dough. Therefore, he did not pose an imminent threat to the lives of those present. Had he INTENDED to kill, he would not have worn a mask.

The armed citizen might have thought the same way, depending on the depth (unknown) of his training regarding use of lethal force. The D.A. will attempt to present evidence that the shooter obtained legal carry status seeking just such an encounter. You may scoff at this, but it happens all the time. A carefully arranged "set-up" must be present, for failure to convict weighs very heavily on Law Enforcement credibility.

Or, the armed citizen, witnessing a possibly once in a lifetime, exceedingly frightening event, a robber pointing a handgun at a store clerk, quickly saw that the lives of any present could be in immediate jeopardy, that including his own life, and he acted accordingly, terminating a possible death-threat. Note that he did not injure any bystanders, and presumably awaited police arrival.

This would be a most interesting case to know the outcome of. What do you think? imp

 

[911]

It is obvious to me that Illinois and Pennsylvania laws are quite different. In PA, the D.A. and the Mayor are both elected positions and neither report to the other, or do they have any control over the other. The Mayor is in charge of his/her's city's government and the D.A. oversees prosecutions and is therefore in the Legal branch of the County that he has been elected in. What I am trying to say is that the Mayor and the D.A. are two distinctly different positions.

Looking at a large city like Philadelphia, the Mayor could put pressure on the D.A. to prosecute a particular case, but he (the Mayor) has no authority to mandate the D.A. to do so. In the worse case scenario, about the only thing the Mayor could do if the D.A. would decide against the Mayor's request is to give the D.A. some bad press.

Looking at the article from the newspaper and if the facts as stated are true and correct, I would think that the investigating officer would interview the witnesses and take their statement. After that has been completed and any evidence, such as a video if a security camera was in use has been collected would all be submitted to the D.A. for his review and at that time would make a decision if any laws had been broken by the individual that fired the gun and shot the suspect. The officer probably would not charge him at that time.

Your statement, "Had he INTENDED to kill, he would not have worn a mask" is skewed. You were correct that he did not want to be ID'd in case he ran, but also in case he committed a more heinous crime, like shooting someone. He just didn't want to be ID"d no matter what the outcome was. THAT'S why he wore the mask. Not to mention that most robberies in Mom and Pop stores are committed by locals in their neighborhood, therefore, another reason to wear a mask.

I investigated a few robbery w/shooting incidents. One in particular, which is similar, but not exact was in a small town located just outside of Pittsburgh. There was no local police department, so here in PA when that type of scenario resents itself, the State Police is called in for "keeping the law." There was a call to 9-1-1, which was forwarded to me by the dispatcher that a man was shot while attempting a robbery. The part time clerk was held up and was in the act of emptying the cash register's contents into a plastic bag as demanded by the suspect. The owner was in the back and was sitting behind a small two way mirror, which is sometimes also called a one way mirror. Anyway, he saw the suspect had a gun pointed at the clerk and the clerk emptying the register. The owner came quietly out of the office and fired a .38 caliber handgun striking the suspect in the back of the head and killing him.

I had the owner close the store and brought the clerk and owner to the barracks for interviews, along with a video of the robbery. I also had the CSI guys take pictures of the crime scene. Then, everything was handed off to the D.A. After reviewing all of the collected evidence, the D.A. decided not to press charges against the owner. His reason was that the owner had reasonable expectations that his clerk was in imminent danger and could have been shot with an outcome of being his death. Surprisingly, the suspect's widow filed a wrongful death suit against the owner, which the judge dismissed. More than likely, an attorney probably contacted the widow and offered to file the suit pro-bono and on contingency.

Good question, or I should say post.

 

[Warrigal]

The mask was probably to avoid indentification via CCTV.
Personally I think that there is a case for not bringing charges here.
This is quite different to the woman shooting at the car of some fleeing shoplifters.

 

[Butterfly]

The mask was probably to avoid indentification via CCTV.
Personally I think that there is a case for not bringing charges here.
This is quite different to the woman shooting at the car of some fleeing shoplifters.

Agreed. The store owner arguably fired because he saw his employee in "deadly peril." Quite different than firing at someone fleeing.