No Charges for this Guy. WOW!

[RobertNashville]

Obviously, there wasn't enough evidence that the DA felt like he had a case. It will also show how good our self defense = no civil suite law is.

The only thing obvious is that the DA isn't charging him; anything else is speculation.

 

That law only applies if the shooting was found by a court to be justified...a DA simply choosing not to prosecute will not protect this guy from civil suits.

 

I guess it's a really good thing for this cowboy that the thug he shot wasn't a kid-thug-want-a-be who only wanted some skddles...of course, if some pics of the thug when he was 13 and looking sweet and innocent show up on the internet things could change.

[RobertNashville]

I don't have a problem with how it ended.

I don't have a problem with how it ended; I have a problem with the manager's actions. If the threat was over (I say "if" because I've seen nothing that specifically says it wasn't) then this manager is a murderer no matter how much people might like that this thug is dead.

 

The day we start prosecuting crime based on the how well we like or dislike the victim is the day we no longer have a civil society.

Edited April 30, 2013 by RobertNashville

[TMF]

Whether he was in fear for his life or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether the fear is reasonable and I see nothing reasonable in being afraid of a thug who is in the process of running away.

If no jury would convict this guy for shooting another man in the back then shame on them.

I guess you have never seen a robbery where the thug shot over his shoulder while running away. I've seen at least a dozen floating around YouTube. One in particular was three thugs robbing a gunshop. One of two clerks pulled his weapon; all three fled and one fired wildly as he ran (with his back turned), hitting one of the clerks in the neck.

If someone pulls a gun on you, then tries to flee, yet still has the gun, he is still a very real threat until such time there is some form of cover separating the two of you. You don't have to believe me, but I suggest you poke around on YouTube for an hour and see some of those videos. You'll notice that the aggressors are presenting and firing over their shoulders in less than a second. If you have a reaction time faster than that then we need look no further for the world's next Chuck Norris.

[RobertNashville]

Well...yeah...if we keep adding stuff to the story that could have happened it can make the story play out any way we want.

Nothing I've read indicates that the guy was presenting an active threat after he left the store until the manager decided to pursue him outside at which point all we know is the the thug was shot and died from a gunshot wound in the back.

 

I believe this manager went out of his way to engage in a gun fight and while it looks like he'll get away without criminal charges I doubt he'll escape the civil consequences for his actions.

[TMF]

Well...yeah...if we keep adding stuff to the story that could have happened it can make the story play out any way we want.

Nothing I've read indicates that the guy was presenting an active threat after he left the store until the manager decided to pursue him outside at which point all we know is the the thug was shot and died from a gunshot wound in the back.

I believe this manager went out of his way to engage in a gun fight and while it looks like he'll get away without criminal charges I doubt he'll escape the civil consequences for his actions.

So is it just as ridiculous to add stuff to the story as it is to say that the person was no longer a threat just because his back was turned?

[RobertNashville]

I'm not adding anything.

 

All the stories I've read about the incident say that the thug left the store and was leaving the area. If that is what the thug was doing then the only way to make him out to still be presenting an active threat is by making assumptions.

[TMF]

I'm not adding anything.
 
All the stories I've read about the incident say that the thug left the store and was leaving the area. If that is what the thug was doing then the only way to make him out to still be presenting an active threat is by making assumptions.

Did he threaten the manager or patrons with a firearm? Did he still possess the firearm when shot? The third question would be whether or not the deceased was in such a position as to still be a threat, and the answer would be yes as the manager was able to hit him, which means the deceased would have been able to hit the manager. If the answers to the first two are also yes, and I'm sitting on the jury, then this guy is going to walk. The DA seems to think the same thing.

[RobertNashville]

Again, you can assume anything you want..

[E4 No More]

Least we forget that TN law states that we are not allowed to escalate a situation to justify a shooting. By fleeing the criminal was de-escalating the situation. By chasing the criminal the manager was escalating it.

 

Still, I'm not upset at the outcome for either party.

Edited May 1, 2013 by SWJewellTN

[JayC]

What is the concern here?  A really bad guy got shot and killed for threatening the lives of a bunch of people.  And you want the good law abiding citizen charged?

 

You have to remember the stand your ground laws we have here...  You can chase after a suspect legally, you can even attempt to stop/detain/arrest them as long as you don't use deadly force...  And if in the process of following/detaining/arresting the bad guy, you have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury you're free to use deadly force.

 

I can think of 100 different ways somebody could have such a reasonable free while following an armed robber, even if the shot that kills him lands in his back.  And that sir is what we call reasonable doubt...  Here we have a DA that not only knows the law, respects the fact he will have re-election problems if he goes about charging law abiding citizens who aren't bad guys for killing armed robbers and thugs in self defense.

 

There is a lot wrong with the criminal justice system, but this isn't an example of it.

 

Well...yeah...if we keep adding stuff to the story that could have happened it can make the story play out any way we want.

Nothing I've read indicates that the guy was presenting an active threat after he left the store until the manager decided to pursue him outside at which point all we know is the the thug was shot and died from a gunshot wound in the back.

 

I believe this manager went out of his way to engage in a gun fight and while it looks like he'll get away without criminal charges I doubt he'll escape the civil consequences for his actions.

 

[JayC]

Care to cite the state law that says this?  Because I'm not aware of said state law.

 

The stand your ground laws in TN allows you to use deadly force anywhere you're legally allowed to be, and not doing anything criminal as long as you're have a reasonable fear of death or serious injury.  Both of those conditions appear to have been met by the manager.  The only question at hand is the reasonable fear of death or serious injury, which most reasonable men would agree an armed bad guy trying to escape could pose a risk of death or serious injury.

 

Chasing after an armed bad guy in the process of committing a felony, while not the smartest thing to do, is not illegal (and is even explicitly legal under state law).

 

Least we forget that an law states that we are not allowed to escalate a situation to justify a shooting. By fleeing the criminal was de-escalating the situation. By chasing the criminal the manager was escalating it.

 

Still, I'm not upset at the outcome for either party.

 

[RobertNashville]

What is the concern here?  A really bad guy got shot and killed for threatening the lives of a bunch of people.  And you want the good law abiding citizen charged?

 

You have to remember the stand your ground laws we have here...  You can chase after a suspect legally, you can even attempt to stop/detain/arrest them as long as you don't use deadly force...  And if in the process of following/detaining/arresting the bad guy, you have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury you're free to use deadly force.

 

I can think of 100 different ways somebody could have such a reasonable free while following an armed robber, even if the shot that kills him lands in his back.  And that sir is what we call reasonable doubt...  Here we have a DA that not only knows the law, respects the fact he will have re-election problems if he goes about charging law abiding citizens who aren't bad guys for killing armed robbers and thugs in self defense.

 

There is a lot wrong with the criminal justice system, but this isn't an example of it.

I don't care how many ways you can think of...I can think of them too; it's still making assumptions and still worthless.

[gjohnsoniv]

Is there any particular reason you're getting worked up about this?

[RobertNashville]

Care to cite the state law that says this?  Because I'm not aware of said state law.

 

The stand your ground laws in TN allows you to use deadly force anywhere you're legally allowed to be, and not doing anything criminal as long as you're have a reasonable fear of death or serious injury.  Both of those conditions appear to have been met by the manager.  The only question at hand is the reasonable fear of death or serious injury, which most reasonable men would agree an armed bad guy trying to escape could pose a risk of death or serious injury.

 

Chasing after an armed bad guy in the process of committing a felony, while not the smartest thing to do, is not illegal (and is even explicitly legal under state law).

 

There is nothing in the news stories that indicate that the thug was still a threat after he left the store.

 

An armed bad guy can pose a threat but being able to be a threat and being one are not interchangeable concepts; either are or they aren't a threat...if they are a threat than you have the protection of using deadly force and claiming self-defense; if they aren't and you employ deadly force you are the one in the wrong.

 

There is not duty to retreat before using deadly force, as long as you are acting lawfully and are in a place you have a right to be and if you have a reasonable fear of imminent death or serious bodily (39-11-611). This is commonly referred to Tennessee's "stand your ground" law. However, nothing in the law allows you to purse someone. In fact, Notices to Decisions Vol 7 page 9 says that "If any less injury than death or great bodily harm is feared or indicated by the circumstances, the plea of self-defense will not be sustained, though the degree of homicide may be reduced." (Rippy v. State, 39 Tennessee, 217 (1858)

 

In other words, when the threat is over, it's OVER and you lose the protection of claiming self-defense.

Edited April 30, 2013 by RobertNashville

[Garufa]

Well Robert, the DA around here, just like everywhere else, has the power to prosecute or not.

 

He chose not to and I have no problem with that.

[RobertNashville]

Well Robert, the DA around here, just like everywhere else, has the power to prosecute or not.

 

He chose not to and I have no problem with that.

DAs charge or don't charge all the time; that has nothing to do with whether an armed citizen can pursue, engage and kill someone after the threat is over and still claim self-defense.

[macville]

DAs charge or don't charge all the time; that has nothing to do with whether an armed citizen can pursue, engage and kill someone after the threat is over and still claim self-defense.

 

Since it is legal to try and detain someone in TN who is committing a felony, it's perfectly legal to go after someone and then shoot them in self defense if they threaten your life. That's not escalation. Maybe the manager was just going outside to see where he went? Don't the police say get as many details as possible? Be a good witness? Escalating normally has to do with breaking the law. Even if the guy hadn't committed a felony, if the manager chased after him within the law, it would not be escalating the situation because you have a legal right to be there.

[RobertNashville]

Since it is legal to try and detain someone in TN who is committing a felony, it's perfectly legal to go after someone and then shoot them in self defense if they threaten your life. That's not escalation. Maybe the manager was just going outside to see where he went? Don't the police say get as many details as possible? Be a good witness? Escalating normally has to do with breaking the law. Even if the guy hadn't committed a felony, if the manager chased after him within the law, it would not be escalating the situation because you have a legal right to be there.

Yes, that's a good point...

 

"the private citizen has the right to arrest when a felony has been committed and he has reasonable cause to believe that the person arrested committed it. Reasonable grounds will justify the arrest, whether the facts turn out to be sufficient or not." (See Wilson v. State, 79 Tenn. 310 (1833).

 

I'm not sure, however, if that right supports trying to effect an arrest to the point of engaging the fleeing felon in a gun battle  and we don't know who fired first or for that matter, if the thug fired at all.

 

At the very least, it seems pretty stupid to me to pursue a thug you know is armed; seems much more the act of a cowboy trying to be tough than a concerned citizen trying to protect the public - if people are worried about the possible threat the thug represented how much more of a threat to innocent people is a gun fight that was unnecessary?

[DaveTN]

This shouldn’t be a game with one side having to play by the rules and the other side doesn’t; unfortunately it is.

 

As a Police Officer if I saw a man threatening someone with gun in an armed robbery, unless he surrendered and put down his weapon I could kill him. If he ran I could kill him and it would be justified by saying that he presented an immediate danger to the public if he escaped. I also had qualified immunity from civil action that as I citizen I do not have.

 

I applaud the DA for not charging the guy. But I wouldn’t take that as an indicator of what other prosecutors would do.

 

Many states use to allow the use of deadly force on “Fleeing Forcible Felons”. Armed robbery is a violent forcible felony.  I’m not sure many do anymore.

 

I hope this is over; it was a good outcome. But I would bet that right now some dirtbag attorney is seeking out the family so he can represent them in a lawsuit.

 

 

[Mike.357]

DAs charge or don't charge all the time; that has nothing to do with whether an armed citizen can pursue, engage and kill someone after the threat is over and still claim self-defense.

 

it has everything to do with it.  if the armed citizen did anything wrong he would have been charged.

 

And just because you did not read facts clearing the manager for his actions does not mean there weren't any.

[TMF]

Again, you can assume anything you want..

Sure I can. So can you apparently. You assume this man did something to break the law, yet you admit we don't have all the facts. One fact that is not in dispute is that he isn't being charged, so regardless of what you "think" happened, this man will not be prosecuted. Somehow the rest of us will sleep okay with that.

[Guest m&pc9]

The DA had all the facts. He chose not to prosecute, that is good enough for me.

[E4 No More]

Care to cite the state law that says this?  Because I'm not aware of said state law.

 

The stand your ground laws in TN allows you to use deadly force anywhere you're legally allowed to be, and not doing anything criminal as long as you're have a reasonable fear of death or serious injury.  Both of those conditions appear to have been met by the manager.  The only question at hand is the reasonable fear of death or serious injury, which most reasonable men would agree an armed bad guy trying to escape could pose a risk of death or serious injury.

 

Chasing after an armed bad guy in the process of committing a felony, while not the smartest thing to do, is not illegal (and is even explicitly legal under state law).

39-11-611. Self-defense.
 

(e) The threat or use of force against another is not justified:

(1) If the person using force consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other individual;

(2) If the person using force provoked the other individual's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:

(A) The person using force abandons the encounter or clearly communicates to the other the intent to do so; and

(B) The other person nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the person;
 

If the other person de-escalates you cannot use deadly force.\

 

39-11-621. Use of deadly force by private citizen.

A private citizen, in making an arrest authorized by law, may use force reasonably necessary to accomplish the arrest of an individual who flees or resists the arrest; provided, that a private citizen cannot use or threaten to use deadly force except to the extent authorized under self-defense or defense of third person statutes, §§ 39-11-611 and 39-11-612.

 

So much for deadly force to affect a citizen's arrest unless the suspect escalates it, but you CAN be considered to be threatening deadly force if your gun is in your hand while running after a suspect. To some people's point, a suspect can turn, fire, and turn around again and thus catch the return fire in the back. Pretty much, there's not enough facts in the article to get anyone's panties in a bunch over it.

[RobertNashville]

it has everything to do with it.  if the armed citizen did anything wrong he would have been charged.

And in earlier posts some were assuming that the DA didn't charge because he wouldn't be able to get a jury to convict, not because the manager's actions didn't justify charges. Unless the DA says otherwise, all we can actually know is that the DA isn't charging...beyond that is nothing but assumption.

 

And just because you did not read facts clearing the manager for his actions does not mean there weren't any.

True; but there is no reason to assume there are facts clearing the manager, either.

Edited May 1, 2013 by RobertNashville

[RobertNashville]

Sure I can. So can you apparently. You assume this man did something to break the law, yet you admit we don't have all the facts. One fact that is not in dispute is that he isn't being charged, so regardless of what you "think" happened, this man will not be prosecuted. Somehow the rest of us will sleep okay with that.

 

I'm not assuming anything; I'm basing my opinion on what I've read in the stories on the incident. Of course we don't have all the facts; we never do.

 

The only assumption I am making is that this former manager and his former employer will be sued civilly and I can sleep okay with that.

Edited May 1, 2013 by RobertNashville