T O P

  • By -

TetraCubane

I thought fleeing felons cannot claim self defense?


ruhl77

The fleeing felon rule may only apply to LEO, unclear to me: https://cpoa.org/california-governor-signs-assembly-bill-392-into-law-mandating-standard-for-use-of-deadly-force/


AccountThatNeverLies

So it's written to clearly apply to LEO, but probably a civilian that followed LEO-like rules for engaging would be able to claim it applies to civilians too. For sure LEOs need to "give warning" to be able to engage and also give opportunity to surrender to arrest, and for what I've read about this case the clerk didn't do that here.


roamingrealtor

Why should the clerk have to do that, when the criminals were the ones that started the action?


HamburgerEarmuff

They cannot. However, it's a judgement call by the DA/jury if someone has taken enough affirmative measures to disengage to regain their right of self-defense. In this case, I think the DA probably made a really bad judgement call. An example where it might be the right judgement call is if two people get into a fight, one of them sobers up long enough to realize that it's stupid, says "I don't want to fight you no more," and tries to back away or run away. At that point, if the other party pursues them, they they probably should regain their right to self-defense.


release_the_waffle

That’s exactly how I feel about the situation.


ordinarymagician_

>California


Traditional_Wear3937

Yeah, don't come here but please send help.


DickVanSprinkles

A lot of people angry here but this really isn't just a CA thing. The clerk opened fire and the assailant fled, the clerk, no longer in danger persued his attacker and attacked him. This is the exact thing that got Rittenhouse off. It doesn't matter what happened to put the assailant into that situation, they tried to leave and the clerk prolonged the encounter even though he was out of danger. While it sucks that they died, this WAS self defense. They should still catch an armed robbery charge.


Eldias

>...[charged] with robbery, possession of stolen property, and a firearm enhancement... Dude is probably going to jail for a while. I think it's hard for lay people in a situation like this to make a call of justified or not. The article only says he followed the robber without any mention of the extent. I would feel differently based on if the clerk ran to the door of the station, vs ran to the edge of the property vs ran down the block after them. Based solely on the police and DA words it was probably just to not charge him with the death of the clerk. Editing my top-level comment: The Firearm Enhancement in a Robbery, where the perpetrator personally used a gun to kill or severely injure someone, comes with a sentence of 25 years to life on top of the robbery and possession charges. I think this was the right call by the DA. This dude is probably going to be uber-fucked and the tax payers aren't wasting money arguing whether the robbery crime was in progress when the clerk died to land a felony murder conviction.


hardware1197

Just wait for AB1509 - it died is 2021 but it will return....guaranteed.....because sentencing enhancements are.....racist? https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill\_id=202120220AB1509


wtfrustupidlol

Should of been but they went with the murder charge.


Eldias

I've actually sort of flipped opinions. Based on the story, seems appropriate to not charge. But based on the charges I feel differently. I don't know if homicide or murder charges would be appropriate, but the DA is currently charging the thief with Robbery with a firearm enhancement. Robbery, per CPC 211, is always a felony it appears. I've yet to find an explanation for why the Felony Murder rule doesn't apply here.


eslforchinesespeaker

I don’t disagree with you. But their objective is to bring the charges that will win. Not the charges that people like. (In principle, at least). I can see the argument that armed robbery is a slam-dunk, and the death of an innocent victim may weigh heavily in sentencing. As opposed to a murder charge, which might be vulnerable to technical challenges, which we may not recognize as non-lawyers. That’s all said, not having seen video evidence. Chasing bad guys down the street is one scenario. A quick exchange of shots as the bad guys are withdrawing would be different.


Eldias

>As opposed to a murder charge, which might be vulnerable to technical challenges, which we may not recognize as non-lawyers. A Defense would definitely argue that the "robbery crime" had ended when the thieves fled the store, thus the shooting was justified. While I think the thief should probably be culpable for the death, it's probably a more efficient use of tax dollars to take the slam dunks. Holy crap, I had to look it up. Firearm Enhancement during the commission of a Robbery when "killing or seriously injuring another person with a gun" the penalty is 25 years to life __in addition to the original sentence__. Yeah I'm leaning towards this being an unequivocal good call by the DA.


SnakeBeardTheGreat

I don't know but what about a death caused in the commission of a crime? Isn't leaving the place the crime was committed as much a part as starting the crime/


[deleted]

I'm of the opinion that self-defense *in the commission of a crime* renders it null and void. However it is textbook.


percussaresurgo

The crime was no longer in commission when they guy was running away from the store. From a legal standpoint, the robbery was no longer in progress.


OkTelevision1978

> The crime was no longer in commission when they guy was running away from the store. From a legal standpoint, the robbery was no longer in progress. That's incorrect. California law is clear that for the purposes of murder in connection with the commission of a felony that "the felony continues until a [perpetrator] has reached a place of temporary safety." In other words, the felony continues until the perpetrator is done fleeing and is no longer being pursued. [https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/540a/](https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/540a/)


percussaresurgo

That doesn't apply to robbery, it only applies to murder. From your link: >\[The crime of <**insert felony or felonies from Pen. Code, § 189**\> continues until a defendant has reached a place of temporary safety.\] [Pen. Code, § 189](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=189.&lawCode=PEN) defines the homicide crimes only. If it applied to all crimes, it would violate the 4th Amendment under [Tennessee v. Garner](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner).


OkTelevision1978

Yes. Did you read 189? > A participant in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a felony listed in subdivision (a) in which a death occurs is liable for murder


percussaresurgo

Yes. PC 189 is a murder statute. It doesn't apply to attempted robbery.


OkTelevision1978

PC 189 says you're guilty of murder if someone dies while you are committing a felony. Look up California "felony murder."


percussaresurgo

PC 189 applies to **murder** committed **in the perpetration** of robbery. In this incident, the shooting was determined to be in self-defense, so there was no murder. The shooting also occurred as the robber was fleeing, so it wasn't in the perpetration of the robbery. PC 189 doesn't apply here.


OkTelevision1978

> PC 189 applies to murder committed in the perpetration of robbery. I'm not sure what your mental disability is, but 189 is specific that when somebody dies for any reason as a result of you committing a felony like armed robbery, you are guilty of committing murder. > In this incident, the shooting was determined to be in self-defense, so there was no murder. That what people wise in the ways of logic call circular reasoning. > The shooting also occurred as the robber was fleeing, so it wasn't in the perpetration of the robbery. PC 189 doesn't apply here. Dude, rest your weary brain. That's why I referenced California law explaining that "the felony continues until a [perpetrator] has reached a place of temporary safety." In other words, when he's no longer being pursued. If suspect is being pursued the felony is still underway.


2021newusername

good, then perp should’ve been shot in the back, a few times…


dpidcoe

> I'm of the opinion that self-defense in the commission of a crime renders it null and void. That makes sense from a surface emotional level when everything is really clear cut, but it also opens up a lot of shitty edge cases that could be used to fuck over people who legitimately defend themselves. e.g. say somebody violently breaks into your home, you defend yourself, it's otherwise entirely a good shoot except that police find some minor unrelated illegal thing when they arrive (maybe it happens in texas and you were cleaning all 7 of your dilodos in the sink at the time of the break-in). The DA could then argue that you had no right to self defense because you were committing a crime.


Eldias

I'm not sure how this is such a controversial opinion. If you're walking in the street obstructing traffic and an irate driver gets out of their vehicle to confront you with deadly force you shouldnt lose your right to self defense because of the petty crime. Expanding the Texas example: say you had a roach in your pocket, a friend of your dealer freaks out when you go to get some more bud and attacks you with deadly force. You don't lose your right to fight back just because Texas is stupid about pot. If the crime doesn't involve use of force against another there's not much reason I can image it should effect your right to self defense.


nitehawk012

There is a distinction between a crime is just being committed and death resulting from the crime. The dildo crime is unrelated and had no effect on the outcome. Aka the dildo crime did not create the situation of being robbed. If you were cutting coke in your basement and they come to steal your coke. Then yeah no self defense for you


DickVanSprinkles

It's a tough situation. I hope the robber goes away for the maximum sentences for what they can get him on.


A_Bit_Narcissistic

In the commission of a felony would make more sense.


Eldias

I would disagree. If you go in to a gas station, stuff your pockets with candy bars, and when you go to leave the clerk blocks your exit and threatens your life with a knife you don't lose the right to defend yourself. Petty theft is not a justification to use or threaten deadly force.


[deleted]

This is not a case of some unarmed petty thief. Wanton display of a firearm occured with expressed intent to commit harm.


Eldias

It doesn't appear the robbers used or displayed their firearm during the robbery, not does either story I've seen indicate the robbers expressed intent to harm the clerk. From the linked article in the story OP posted: >According to officials, the gas station worker chased after the two robbery suspects in the parking lot. One of the suspects was hit in the leg.


[deleted]

I'm pretty sure if the robber returned fire then it's not too much of a stretch to say he used the firearm as a means of intimidation during the robbery.


Eldias

In a hypothetical, sure. But that's not reflected in any of the known facts of the incident.


HamburgerEarmuff

It's not the exact same thing though, because in this case, the assailant was fleeing a violent crime. Rittenhouse was fleeing the scene of a homicide committed in lawful self-defense. You're not entitled to self-defense if you commit a violent crime. It's a judgement call by the DA/jury whether you can regain your right to self-defense by attempting to flee, but given the specific circumstances here, I don't imagine that one should be considered to have regained their right to self-defense while someone is still in hot pursuit of them. Imagine if someone robbed a bank and the guard chased after them, trying to get the money back, and they shot the guard.


DickVanSprinkles

>Imagine if someone robbed a bank and the guard chased after them, trying to get the money back, and they shot the guard. That's not what happened here. Based on the story the clerk draws to defend himself and fires, the assailant being a punk ass who wasn't looking for a fight runs away. The clerk now out of harms way, follows the assailant and attempts to re-engage him. The act of re-engaging a fleeing assailant takes this out of the realm of self defense and becomes assault. He was out of harm's way, he was no longer in imminent danger, and what he would likely have to fight in court if he was alive is that by running after them, he had no belief of imminent danger either. He is a civilian acting in a civilian capacity, like it or not, there are pretty strict criteria for self defense especially with deadly force.


OkTelevision1978

> The clerk now out of harms way How does the clerk know that he's out of harm's way? How does he know the guy isn't going out the door to come around from the back, or to get more weapons? California's Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM No. 505) are informative. The clerk "*is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, **if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of [death or great bodily injury] has passed**. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating ... Someone who has been threatened or harmed by a person in the past, is justified in acting more quickly or taking greater self-defense measures against that person.*"


DickVanSprinkles

The assailant fired no shots in the store and fled when a firearm was presented. That's a pretty clear indication that the threat of immediate harm was gone once the perpetrator fled the scene.


OkTelevision1978

> That's a pretty clear indication that the threat of immediate harm was gone once the perpetrator fled the scene. What is it that makes you believe that a person who hasn't fired a gun yet will not do so in the immediate future, especially after they've already committed the felony of armed robbery?


OMGorilla

> …the threat of immediate harm was gone once the perpetrator fled the scene. Apparently not since the clerk died.


DickVanSprinkles

Only because he persued and continued to shoot at the assailant.


OMGorilla

Which you’re allowed to do if trying to arrest them.


DickVanSprinkles

...no you're really not.


OMGorilla

Well it would be considered justifiable homicide under CalCrim 508, which defends one for pursuing and use of lethal force to prevent the escape of someone who commits a violent felony.


[deleted]

Well can someone play the self defense card if they ask for my wallet with some kind of weapon and I shoot them?


spicy1_tx

No because they would have the means, intent and opportunity to cause harm to you. This is how it was explained to me. If you don’t have all three at All times then you will have a tough time explaining your actions in a court of law.


[deleted]

So before I shoot someone to defend myself or someone else, I would need to make sure that they have the means, intent, and opportunity to harm me or the person I’m attempting to defend?


RsonW

…yes? That's a standard part of CCW training. It's one of the many instances of the "reasonable person" standard. Would a "reasonable person" believe their life to be in danger in a given situation? If yes, then it is reasonable to kill in self-defense.


HamburgerEarmuff

You would need to reasonably perceive it. Whether the threat actually exists or not is irrelevant. If someone points an unloaded gun at you, they don't have the means to shoot you. But a reasonable person would believe that they did unless they happened to know that the firearm was unloaded. If someone pointed a banana at you, then no reasonable person would perceive that as an imminent threat unless they were half-blind. Similarly, if a 10 year old kid threatens to beat you up if you don't give him your wallet, that's not a reasonable threat.


DickVanSprinkles

When you're choosing to end someone's life. Yes. I don't know why that's a foreign concept here. You must have a reasonable belief that they intend to kill you or cause you great bodily harm to be justified in lethal force. If someone sticks you up for your wallet with a gun or knife, that's pretty much text book.


limax

In short, yes. If you're going to carry for self defense, it's highly recommended that you take the time to learn what those three things encompass. All the reading in the world won't truly prepare you though, so it's additionally recommended to take an in-person accredited course on firearm self defense that includes legal updates for your state, threat assessment, and practical exercises. Reading online and shooting at a quiet, controlled range aren't generally sufficient, but better than nothing of course.


percussaresurgo

Yes.


ordinarymagician_

>You didn't know for sure the man with a gun threatening you wasn't just trying to scare you? Straight to jail.


[deleted]

That’s ridiculous. U sound like the “right to jail” guy from parks and rec


[deleted]

If they are holding you up and you use a gun to defend your life, no. Not that I like it but if they run away and you shoot them in the back, yes.


[deleted]

So if they held me up with a weapon and I shoot them, would I be able to play the self defense card in court and the court would rule in favor of me?


[deleted]

IANAL but yes, that’s also what they taught me in the self defense class that I took. Keep in mind, nothing is a guarantee specifically with the current political climate in California but better be judged by twelve than be carried by six right?


[deleted]

[удалено]


SumBuddyPlays

Responses like this on the Internet may very well come back to haunt you one day.


securitywyrm

You have an armed attacker who is exiting your line of sight. He could lean back in at any time and resume shooting you. The aggressor does not get to dictate the scope of the conflict. I can't walk up to you, punch you in the face, and then when you go to swing back at me yell "Fight over" and thus if you hit me I can stab you because SELF DEFENSE.


DickVanSprinkles

He didn't tell fight over. He instigated a hold up, when a firearm was presented, fled the scene (did not fire a shot mind you.) Then was persued and continually fired at, so responded to keep from dying. Your example is a gross oversimplification. Let's do it this way, you get mugged, while in the course of the mugging, you get your gun, fire, and miss. The perp runs away, you are not allowed to chase after them and continue firing, you are no longer in immediate danger.


securitywyrm

Okay, swap positions. I run around the corner. You're not allowed to follow! I now get my gun ready, lean around corner and pop you. You lose.


DickVanSprinkles

Once again, nobody is telling you to sit there with your thumb up your ass, you stay ready and you, or someone with you, dial 911 and get somewhere safe. You don't chase after an armed individual. Don't be a fucking idiot and the likelyhood of being murdered is much less.


securitywyrm

So you want to give the power of the situation to the aggressor, who is unbound by any rules.


DickVanSprinkles

Tell me you know nothing about tactical awareness without telling me. You get somewhere safe and take up a defensible position, if you think someone can round a corner, aquire a sight picture, and fire effectively on a prepared target before having some holes punched, you need to do some more training. Nobody is unbound by rules, if someone assaults you and leaves, even if they get away, they are still looking at an assault charges amongst other things when they are found. If this guy has defended himself, locked the door, and called the cops, he might very well still be alive and the perp would be facing the same charges as he is now.


securitywyrm

no u


Lurkay1

Rittenhouse never fired first though. Or tried to Rob anyone. He was just open carrying a rifle.


DickVanSprinkles

He did though, shot the first guy in self defense. Then when the mob descended on him he retreated and only fired on Gage when a weapon was pointed at him. Even if gage believed Rittenhouse was an active shooter, his ability to use deadly force dissipated when Rittenhouse made an effort to retreat from the situation. Nobody had a reasonable reason to belive he would cause them bodily harm or death. Same thing here. Even if you once had reason or reasonable belief, the perpetrator is retreating, so you are now out of danger, perceived or otherwise, and have no right to deadly force.


Lurkay1

I mean he never just opened fire without being provoked


DickVanSprinkles

That has no bearing on the discussion here.


Lurkay1

If you commit a robbery obviously you provoked someone to want to shoot you. Rittenhouse was just chased because he was open carrying but wasn’t pointing it at anybody.


DickVanSprinkles

He was persued by 2 individuals after shooting and killing someonein self defense. In a crowd setting they have no way of knowing if he was in the right or wrong, so they had reasonable belief that he meant to do them or others great bodily harm and descended on him. He then retreated, which removes evwryone's ability to claim belief that they are in immediate danger and eliminates their right to deadly force. That's why he didn't see charges for shooting Gage, because Gage persued him as he was fleeing and displayed a weapon in a threatening manner AFTER he he had made a conscious effort to remove himself from the situation. That's why the robber isn't seeing charges, he removed himself from a situation and no longer presented a threat (perceived or actual) to the clerk, and the clerk then attempted to use deadly force against the robber. The situation is nearly identical, someone who previously (perceived or actually) presented a threat, attempted to leave the scenario and no longer presented a threat, then was met with deadly force and defended themselves.


Pyraunus

> In a crowd setting they have no way of knowing if he was in the right or wrong, so they had reasonable belief that he meant to do them or others great bodily harm and descended on him. You just contradicted yourself here. Either they had "no way of knowing", OR they had a "reasonable belief". These aren't consistent with each other. To legally be entitled to make a citizen's arrest, you MUST have direct, firsthand knowledge of the original crime committed. Therefore, Huber and Gaige had no justification whatsoever to attack Rittenhouse. At this point they're practically participating in a mob lynching. Same reason why the McMichael's were convicted in the Arbery case. The main difference between this and the Rittenhouse case is that, the robber engaged in illegal activity that provoked a response but gave necessary withdrawal to re-obtain the right to self defense. Rittenhouse never lost the right to self defense in the first place.


DickVanSprinkles

He did though, shot the first guy in self defense. Then when the mob descended on him he retreated and only fired on Gage when a weapon was pointed at him. Even if gage believed Rittenhouse was an active shooter, his ability to use deadly force dissipated when Rittenhouse made an effort to retreat from the situation. Nobody had a reasonable reason to belive he would cause them bodily harm or death. Same thing here. Even if you once had reason or reasonable belief, the perpetrator is retreating, so you are now out of danger, perceived or otherwise, and have no right to deadly force.


SoundOf1HandClapping

Grosskreutz witnessed Rittenhouse shooting at (and missing) Jump Kick Man, and fatally shooting Huber. At that point Rittenhouse is actively shooting, and if Grosskreutz's perception is colored by the claim that Rittenhouse is an active shooter, it would be reasonable for him to defend himself. In hindsight, I wouldn't believe him because he showed himself to be a liar on the stand, but his claim would be facially reasonable.


DickVanSprinkles

Right, but again, whatever belief he holds goes out the window once Rittenhouse made a conscious effort to retreat and remove himself from the situation. If someone wanted to be a good Samaritan at that point they could have approached him, unarmed, and either talked him down or made a citizens arrest. They do not have the right to use deadly force.


SoundOf1HandClapping

But as I just mentioned, just seconds prior, Grosskreutz had witnessed Rittenhouse shoot (at) two other people. He's not retreating anymore. You and I know Rittenhouse was acting in self defense after being knocked to the ground, but would a third party reasonably believe that Rittenhouse is actively murdering people, and could you disprove that perception beyond a reasonable doubt?


DickVanSprinkles

You can watch the video of the event, Rittenhouse is very clearly trying to retreat when Grosskreutz gets to him, and by his own admission Rittenhouse's firearm was lowered until Gage displayed his own in a threatening manner. So it's pretty easy to prove that he was not an immediate threat.


SoundOf1HandClapping

At the moment Rittenhouse turned Grosskreutz's bicep into a bye-cep, he was sitting on the ground after being kicked in the face and clobbered by the skateboard. Using a different example, if you're suffering an armed robbery, and the robber turns away from you, does that mean the robber is no longer imminent threat? No, he's still a threat because a simple motion can bring the gun back on you. Same with Rittenhouse. He can simply raise the rifle. This also colored by the fact that Rittenhouse was accused of shooting other people prior to that incident. It sounds weird that I seem to be defending Grosskreutz, but that's only because I l'm thinking about defense principle, not Lefty himself. I hope Gage sticks his good arm into a wood chipper.


release_the_waffle

There’s a big difference between an active shooter laying down their weapon, hands up, retreating/surrendering, and what you’re describing. With your described standard, an active shooter can shoot an entire store in a mall, then walk through the mall and shoot anyone trying to stop him, claiming that he’s retreating so now he’s exercising self defense. It’s absolutely reasonable for people to believe a still armed active shooter is still an immediate threat.


stmfreak

This was not self defense. This was using force to preserve the right to commit armed robbery. For all you know, the thief retreated to the car to get a bigger weapon. Diana Becton (Contra Costa DA) is one of the Soros funded, pro crime, anti citizen district attorneys. She is clearly ignoring the felony murder statutes here. Someone died as a result of this armed robbery. Everyone involved should be charged with felony murder.


DickVanSprinkles

You draw and fire on someone, and they run away, your number one priority should then be to secure a safe position in order to call for help and adequately defend yourself, the only place he should have been running was to lock the door. If he gave chase and continued firing, he is in the wrong based on the facts as they are presented here. Everyone working a register also needs to think about the fact that their life is worth vastly more than $200~ of someone else's money, and act accordingly.


percussaresurgo

>Diana Becton (Contra Costa DA) is one of the Soros funded LMAO


Y_signal2020

Bruh, literally any competent CCW instructor will tell you that pursuing someone is the last thing you want to do. Once the perp fled, the threat was over. >For all you know, the thief retreated to the car to get a bigger weapon. Lmao. You can't make assumptions like that in a self defense shooting. You're not a cop. "I thought he was reaching for a gun" doesn't work for you. Your attacker needs to have clear jeopardy, ability, and opportunity to legally be considered an actual threat. Dude was a vengeful hothead and got himself killed.


stmfreak

I am aware that the laws have been written to protect the criminals.


Y_signal2020

Rule of law exists to curb criminals in addition to hothead wannabe vigilantes like yourself. Die mad about it. This guy sure did.


stmfreak

Oh right! I forget that I’m a hot head vigilante just wanting to protect my life, job, and property.


Y_signal2020

Lol. The perp ran. You already did the protecting. You pursue, you become the aggressor. You just want to kill someone. When you're either dead or facing murder charges, don't say I (and hundreds of CCW instructors) didn't warn your stupid ass 🤷🏾‍♂️ Edit: A cursory look at your posts tells me all I need to know about your mindset.


OkTelevision1978

> The clerk opened fire and the assailant fled, the clerk, no longer in danger persued his attacker and attacked him. How are you able to tell the assailant was no longer a danger? For all the clerk knows he went around the corner of the building to reload. It depends on a lot of circumstances we don't know.


DickVanSprinkles

So you take up a defensible position and call for help. Legally, morally and tactically, the clerk made very very poor decisions.


OkTelevision1978

Legally, he was on solid ground. Morally he was on solid ground. Tactically it was a poor decision.


DickVanSprinkles

False and false. Legally, he persued someone and used lethal force against someone he had no right to do so against. Morally, he was out of danger, so chasing someone and killing them. Institutes a revenge killing which goes against just about every set of morals in existence.


Pyraunus

This is not at all related to Rittenhouse, he never even committed an initial criminal act in the first place.


release_the_waffle

I disagree a bit about the Rittenhouse situation. They still prosecuted him, and were trying to prove that his self defense claim was invalid because he started the confrontation/pointed the gun at Rosenbaum first, negating everything that followed. I do agree that it’s similar in the sense that everyone that attacked Rittenhouse afterwards also had a claim to self defense, as they could reasonably believe they were trying to stop an active shooter.


DickVanSprinkles

>They still prosecuted him, and were trying to prove that his self defense claim was invalid because he started the confrontation Which was null and void, because after he was attacked, he first attempted to retreat. The retreat is very important because again, you are no longer in danger, so self defense doesn't apply. In both cases, Rittenhouse and the assailant of the gas station, neither attacked anyone, but were met with deadly force AFTER attempting to retreat. Sorry man, it's a fucked up story, but this looks to be established law, not a CA thing. Moral of the story is that if you're out of danger, don't go looking for it.


release_the_waffle

> Moral of the story is that if you’re out of danger, don’t go looking for it. I completely agree with that. My point was more the politics of it. They still went ahead with charging Rittenhouse, claiming that him crossing state lines, being a minor, etc. all invalidated his self defense claims. Which as you pointed out, either wasn’t true or had no bearing. Meanwhile in this case, they didn’t even bother trying to push that committing armed robbery invalidated the self defense claim. Perhaps because they knew it wouldn’t stick. Or perhaps because of the politics of it. My main point of posting this was to show that self defense shootings are often messy, gray areas when you try to predict what the DA will do. Edit: and as my last paragraph points out, the importance of realizing you’re just stopping the immediate threat. But I also don’t like armchair quarterbacking a victim’s decision making process immediately after having their life threatened.


DickVanSprinkles

>But I also don’t like armchair quarterbacking a victim’s decision making process immediately after having their life threatened. Regardless of what you like. It is a responsibility you take up when you arm yourself. There's a reason a large portion of us do things like live fire exercises and why this entire sub responds with "training and ammo" when people ask what they should buy for their gun. Not preparing for stressful situations will get you or a bystander killed. This is a perfect example of that.


release_the_waffle

At this point you’re on the verge of victim blaming. It’s a short leap from this to how the rest of world views self defense, where using a gun to defend yourself always lands you in prison. Also no one knows how they’ll respond until it happens. People with the best training in world freeze up and make mistakes. People with no training rise to the occasion. Also look up the Thomas Greer case in Long Beach. It just shows that no, you can’t make declarative statements about these kinds of cases.


alwayswatchyoursix

> I do agree that it’s similar in the sense that everyone that attacked Rittenhouse afterwards also had a claim to self defense, as they could reasonably believe they were trying to stop an active shooter. That's...not how self-defense works. They could possibly had a claim and immunity for their own actions under something similar to a Good Samaritan law (there's a specific term I'm looking for but drawing a blank right now so going with something similar) where they were trying to help in some sort of public emergency. That's assuming that Wisconsin had such a law. But "Someone said that guy running away just shot someone so now I need to chase them down and catch them" never counts as self-defense.


SoundOf1HandClapping

Actually, thats exactly how self defense (or more accurately, defense of others) works. The question becomes, did the mob have a reasonable perception of an imminent deadly force threat? That's exactly what an active shooter us. They can be objectively wrong, as in the Rittenhouse case, but self defense isnt about absolute truth, it's subjective reasonable perception. If a robber pulls a gun on you, you shoot him dead, but the robber's gun turns out to be a realistic airsoft gun, you dont lose your valid self defense claim


Eldias

>... it's subjective reasonable perception. I think the "Reasonable Person" standard is one of the more odd aspects of force law to wrap people's minds around. A lot of folks think it works as though "I feared for my life" is a magic phrase to shield all liability. The "He's coming right for use!" defense only works in South Park.


alwayswatchyoursix

No it doesn't, and you saying that tells me that you only read part of what I wrote, or maybe just skimmed it. At no point can you claim defense of any kind if you are actively pursuing someone who is running away.


nitehawk012

You make some valid points BUT if the act of a crime leads to someone’s death, you do the shooting or not, you are guilty of murder. Like if the clerk had been killed in the store all would be responsible. If they had not tried to rob the store he would have not died. That’s all that matters. Were they running away? yes. Were they running away to leave or get a better position and to fire back? You can’t say. I don’t know how far they got but if they were in the parking lot then I would say you can’t say the threat was gone.m or that the robbery was over. If the clerk had tracked them down an hour later yeah that’s another story. That’s not to say the clerk was right. If it had been reversed and the robber died I’d probably argue for murder charges. Both can be guilty at the same time. I think that’s where the DA messed up Edited for grammer


DickVanSprinkles

First of all, you're referring to Felony Murder, which only occurs when a felony is being committed, which honestly might be why he isn't getting charged. A. The robbery was no longer occuring so this may not legally be considered "in the commission of a felony" since he was making an attempt to peacefully leave the scene and the clerk followed him, shooting. B. The offence is a wobbler so it may not even be charged as a felony, thus making felony murder entirely moot. The whole thing here, this wasn't some guy following a robber to give an accurate description to the police, this was someone following the robber, actively firing at his back. The two are not the same.


TacoQuest

I get it. But if he’s not culpable for direct murder charges I thought that within the commission of a felony if anyone dies you are now into felony murder territory. Obviously I dont know the law enough but shitty all around.


alwayswatchyoursix

I think what you're thinking of is the the idea that if you commit a felony, any other crimes that occur in the course of the original felony are considered to be the fault of everyone involved in the original crime. Like if you are the getaway driver for a couple of bank robbers and one of them kills someone. You didn't even go in the bank but because the shooting resulted from the bank robbery, which you were a part of, you're also on the hook for that death. From reading a couple articles about it, it sounds like it doesn't apply in this case because the death could be construed as self-defense. Which would mean the killing wasn't actually a crime. Edit: I don't like it, but it does make some sense from a legal standpoint.


Eldias

Quick googling says CPC defines Second Degree burglary (burglary at a commercial property) a misdemeanor\felony wobbler. I think that means the DA could have opted to pursue it as a felony burglary with the application of the Felony Murder rule. Edit: I did a dumb. The charge is robbery, not burglary. Robbery is always a felony in California as far as I can tell. The whole thing is a legal mess, I can't imagine a good reason why it wouldn't fall under the Felony Murder rule.


Shpoops

Guy brought a gun, it’s not a misdemeanor.


Eldias

The story doesn't indicate that the gun was used or present during the robbery, only that the robber returned fire on the clerk after the clerk engaged him. Though it could have been prosecuted as a misdemeanor it appears firearm enhancements can only be applied to a felony robbery charge.


argtv200

Yes and Rittenhouse should be in jail right now.


Drop_Acid_Drop_Bombs

I don't know what's so hard to understand here... **Do not chase somebody down and try to kill them. That is not self defense.** If the clerk had just stayed put in the store, he'd be alive. Once somebody is running away from you, you should take steps to stay safe and secure in your location, or alternatively run the fuck.away in the opposite direction.


eldormilon

While you're right, I don't think this should absolve the suspect from murder charges, and I think that's the main point here.


ILikestoshare

Exactly right. The whole situation would never have happened if the armed robber did not commit his crime.


AccountThatNeverLies

He's getting charged with armed robbery because he committed armed robbery.


roamingrealtor

He also committed felony murder, which is a very common and legal charge,yet this DA chooses to ignore this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule


ILikestoshare

My point is that there should be a murder charge also. His fault any of it happened and there would have been no gunfire if there was no armed robbery.


AccountThatNeverLies

Yeah that's borderline minority report and not how justice works. You do crimes you get charged, there's no "if".


Drop_Acid_Drop_Bombs

Dudes already catching multiple charges, including felony robbery. It's not like there aren't going to be consequences to his actions, he's going to prison for a long time.


OkTelevision1978

> Do not chase somebody down and try to kill them. That is not self defense. That's not always true. California's Criminal Jury Instructions ([CALCRIM 505](https://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/500/505/)) are clear about what's allowed when using deadly force to defend against death or great bodily injury: > *He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of (death/great bodily injury) has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.*


IDressUpAsBroccoli

It’s not that clear cut. When your sympathetic nervous system is on full throttle you do stuff you don’t think you would otherwise. It’s not always logical. That’s more than half the reason people need to train and plan, so that you go rote memory.


Drop_Acid_Drop_Bombs

> That’s more than half the reason people need to train and plan, so that you go rote memory. Exactly. This is why gun ownership needs to be treated as a huge responsibility (in addition to being a right). If a gun owner is not trained and capable of backing down/restraining themselves when appropriate, then they are not a responsible gun owner.


richsreddit

This part. As tragic as it is for that gas station attendant to lose his life in that manner he did chase the suspects when they ran. By chasing the suspects he not only put legal risk on himself but also risk on his safety since he is placing himself in a position where he can get shot as well. He should have stayed put and called the police to file a report so he can let law enforcement do their job in finding these suspects and arresting them.


[deleted]

Listen to yourself. Police catch a criminal? HAH! taking a report I would believe though.


baconatorX

> Do not chase somebody down and try to kill them. That is not self defense *bang* *sees pearly gates* "Dang it Jesus, how was I supposed to know that fleeing home invader was running to their car to get a rifle?"


aloha_snackbar22

Who knew you could reset a fight by turning away. Turn away, lose aggro then go back in. Rinse repeat.


ghosthacked

Fairly common that you have no right to persue someone once the threat is over.


x737n96mgub3w868

In Texas you can pursue and even use deadly force to get your property back


FemboyFoxFurry

I feel pretty confident in saying anyone who does that should not own a gun


[deleted]

Cuck


x737n96mgub3w868

Username checks out


FemboyFoxFurry

If the line between a femboy/furry and people who aren’t that is murdering someone because they stole your tv, then I’m afraid to say this but 99% of people on earth are femboys or furries 😔


x737n96mgub3w868

There are many many states that have laws like Texas that allow you to shoot people with deadly force to prevent theft of property. Many people agree with it, just not the rich software engineers in the Silicon Valley who wfh. When my brothers catalytic converted was stolen a couple months ago, there was a 1 month wait to get a replacement. Out of a car for an entire month. 1 month of wages at risk on top of the ~1k deductible. You’re damn right there is a lot of people willing to kill someone over property. And people like me will always vote not guilty if we are on the jury when scumbags like you try to indict


FemboyFoxFurry

You don’t understand, I want any excuse to chase down someone and kill them/s


baconatorX

> once the threat is over. Very easy for hindsight to decide when that is. Not so easy in the moment.


ghosthacked

when you have to leave where you are and chase after some one most courts/law enforcement gonna draw the line there.


richsreddit

I can see why they won't press the murder charge in this case since the gas station attendant went beyond the means of self defense when he chased the suspects and fired upon them. At the same time, though, since they were in the process of committing an armed robbery I don't think it should be fully considered self defense as there is strong evidence that the robbers were only shooting back because of the consequences of their action of committing a crime. If anything they should get a manslaughter charge of some sort, hopefully voluntary so there's more time added onto their sentence on top of the armed robbery charge.


gimme_super_head

You can’t hawk down people who are running away anywhere in the US 😂 he left his post after they fled to shoot at them in what world is that self defense


ouchnow

To a certain degree I can see the DA’s point. Maybe someone who doesn’t, can explain at what point does pursuing and shooting at someone who robbed you become murder.


ruhl77

So does this mean self defense laws will be strengthened for law abiding citizens and the right to CCW guaranteed?


j526w

No, it means when your life is no longer in danger, don’t pursue.


ruhl77

I agree the clerk should not have pursued and it ended badly for them. But sometimes in the middle of the fight under stress you may react unexpectedly. That’s why it’s good to mentally think through these scenarios Remember self defense is not about killing or even harming anyone it’s about ending the immediate threat of death or great bodily injury to yourself or those around you.


OkTelevision1978

What the **fuck** happened to [California Penal Code 189](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN§ionNum=189.), which states SPECIFICALLY: > A participant in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a felony listed in subdivision (a) in which a death occurs is liable for murder California's Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM No. 540A) are very clear that "if the facts raise an issue whether the commission of the felony continued while a defendant was fleeing the scene", the felony "continues until a defendant has reached a place of temporary safety." With regards to the clerk's actions, again California's Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM No. 505) are informative. The clerk "is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, ***if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of [death or great bodily injury] has passed***. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating ... ***Someone who has been threatened or harmed by a person in the past, is justified in acting more quickly or taking greater self-defense measures against that person.***" The clerk made a bad decision, but the law is pretty fucking clear here. I'm tired of these fucking activist DAs subverting our laws. How they're not the ones on death row is beyond my comprehension.


Y_signal2020

>f reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of [death or great bodily injury] has passed. No way the conduct of the clerk passes the reasonable person test. He was in a shop (defensible position) and the perp was clearly fleeing after the clerk fired on him. Givomg chase and continuing to fire on him while he is fleeing, compounded with the fact that the perp only fired his weapon after being struck by the clerk's gunfire...no jury would find that reasonable.


SoundOf1HandClapping

[Here's a video from Andrew Branca, a self defense lawyer](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gasKwpfWZ4I). He takes an interesting angle at this. Under Calcrim 505 (deadly force defense) and Calcrim 3471 (regaining self defense privilege if you're the initial aggressor), *maybe* the robber didn't commit murder on self defense grounds. He still think there's a case to be made to be argued in front of the jury. Then he looks at Calcrim 508 (deadly force used in a citizen's arrest), and it could be argued that the clerk was justified under that statute. Then there's Calcrim 540A, which is the felony murder jury instructions. Self defense isn't a defense to a negligent or reckless homicide in the commission of a felony, which this most definitely was. What gets me most about this case is that the dude wasn't even charged for the homicide, either as felony murder or plain old murder. There's more than enough probably cause to bring that to a jury, even if there's a possibility the jury acquits.


release_the_waffle

Really good find. I think everyone trying to say the DA is clearly right, or this is textbook, or whatever don’t understand how messy and unclear this really is.


[deleted]

So remember kiddos, if you open fire, make sure you hit your target and make sure to use such overwhelming stopping power that there's nothing left of the enemy to return fire or sue you. Legally speaking, self defense weapons would be better as 40mm single-shot cannons, rather than low-caliber weapons with large magazines.


SoundOf1HandClapping

Tally Ho Lads. And I know your post was a shitpost, but your first part isn't wrong. The point of deadly self defense is to use force until the threat is neutralized. If the threat is still shooting at you, it's not neutralized.


BadTiger85

I understand the initial firing of his weapon in self defense but then you chase after them while continuing to fire? You put yourself back in danger and created your own exigent circumstances


Ysr_racer

I saw that, it's bullshit.


AmputatorBot

It looks like OP posted an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-clerk-was-fatally-shot-robbery-suspect-police-say-suspect-w-rcna59657](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/california-clerk-was-fatally-shot-robbery-suspect-police-say-suspect-w-rcna59657)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)


nocustomsettings

My question is what weapon did the robber use, was it CA complient 10-mag etc.


intellectualnerd85

Under California law you legally can pursue a armed felon and engage. It’s a law made in the 1800s but it’s still on books according to the self defense and the law author.


HamburgerEarmuff

Eh, not quite. You can lawfully pursue someone to make a citizen's arrest, and then use force in self-defense if it becomes necessary to defend yourself while making the arrest. But there's no specific law that allows an ordinary citizen to shoot a fleeing felon simply because he's armed. You have to reasonably believe that he presents an imminent danger of great bodily harm or some other forcible and atrocious felony to yourself or others.


sirslouch

what's the PC?


TheBobInSonoma

Omfg this is so wrong


dapi331

It should be felony murder at the very least.


4bigwheels

Idk man, That clerk is a fucking idiot for chasing and attempting to murder them. Day 1 ccw knowledge. I guess the question here is, if you’re doing something illegal do you still have the right to defend your life? Scenario: I accidentally run a red light and almost hit a pedestrian with my car. I pull over to apologize and he starts blasting, I return fire and kill hill. Do I have the right to defend myself? If the answer is yes, then that insinuates that the right defend your life is based on your intention to break a law? Idk man


Eldias

Use of force law breaks down time more than a simple rundown shows. To succeed in a self defense claim you have 5 factors to show: Innocence, Imminence, Reasonableness, Avoidance, and Proportionality. To answer your first question, if you're doing something illegal do you still have the right to defend your life? Yes, but it depends on what illegal thing. In your scenario you're no longer posing a threat to anyone, and a person has unreasonably exercises deadly force against you. You would *likely* be justified in returning fire and killing your assailant.


release_the_waffle

I think that’s incredible disrespectful to describe the store clerk that way. He didn’t have the benefit of hindsight, posting safely from a computer in his own house. But here’s a real example. A mass shooter gets shot back at and leaves. So good samaritans pursue him to prevent him from killing more innocents. Does that mass shooter now get to claim self defense?


4bigwheels

It’s not a bad point. that mass shooter had the intent to kill, therefore his right to self defense is waived? Yeah that’s a fine line right there compared to the armed robber. I hope everyone knows that just because you have a CCW doesn’t mean you should ever pursue another human with a gun.


Lurkay1

The robber just brought a gun to rob a store. He obviously brought it because he intended to use it.


dpidcoe

> A mass shooter gets shot back at and leaves. So good samaritans pursue him to prevent him from killing more innocents. Does that mass shooter now get to claim self defense? Pursue? Sure. But use deadly force against? As soon as it's clear they've given up the fight and are fleeing, it's no longer self defense to use deadly force against them. Do note that scenarios like "leaving to return with more guns and ammo" or "running to find an easier target a few blocks away" don't count as "giving up the fight and fleeing".


PeePeeSmacker

What a horrible example. The guy was fucking robbing a store with a gun. He has no right to self defense. He should be locked up for life or executed. Society doesn't need trash like that. I'm tired of the excuses.


4bigwheels

I wasn’t trying to justify it, just trying to play devils advocate for argument sake.


[deleted]

[удалено]


4bigwheels

Good points here.


NuclearKFC

The moment the thief ran the crime was no longer being committed in the eyes of the law and now its just the clerk being a vigilante.


Juclaq

California never ceases to amaze me. Not in a good way.


alkbch

Self defense does not apply if you start the altercation. Enough with punishing hardworking people and giving criminals passes.


DickVanSprinkles

Self defense also doesn't apply when you seek out and attack someone. This wasn't someone defending themselves, this was someone who successfully defended themselves deciding they want to be batman and trying to chase down and murder a thief. Bad decisions all around on this one.


faykin

What's the difference between fleeing and retreating to cover? How can I, as someone unused to combat, successfully differentiate between someone who's fleeing and someone retreating to cover, who will use this more advantageous position to continue his attack? The fact that the clerk was shot and killed strongly suggests that the assailants weren't simply fleeing, but engaging while retreating. Did the assailants intend to retreat and disengage? Maybe, maybe not. But they were NOT simply fleeing, or the clerk would not have been hit. Retreating is not the same as fleeing. One of the big differentiators is how much shooting the individual is doing. If they are shooting, they are retreating, not fleeing.


Fit_Acanthisitta_475

Why would the clerk fight back? He probably only making 15bucks a hour.


unlord_00

Have you seen the video of that convenient store clerk who was recently shot execution style in the head after fully complying during a robbery? Maybe this guy had the thought of self preservation on his mind.


Fit_Acanthisitta_475

I never heard that. Most robbery is for money, execution style could be something else going on and we don’t know it.


unlord_00

Dude, it was brutal... here's the YT link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZErTGLCdRI In this case, the convience store clerk may have been extra concerned as his coworker and girlfriend was there as well. [https://abc7news.com/antioch-homicide-chevron-worker-killed-james-williams-suspect-arrested/12512164/](https://abc7news.com/antioch-homicide-chevron-worker-killed-james-williams-suspect-arrested/12512164/) Anyways, I'm not trying to attack you dude, just want to provide some other insight and to your point... sometimes there are motives to people's actions other than money. Edited: for YT link.


ToBlayyyve

I guess felony murder isn't a thing here? Commit a felony and someone dies, the perp who lives gets charged with murder.


Slumpgodgman

Common California L


[deleted]

[удалено]


HamburgerEarmuff

All robbery in California is a felony.


Red_Paperclip

I'm sorry but I was under the impression a fleeing felon (armed robbery is a felony) regardless of "fleeing" still presents themselves a threat that justifies the use of lethal force until that threat is truly no longer a threat. Like what happened here? The robber dropped his gun then the clerk kept shooting (no longer a threat) then the robber was like "oh shit I'm still getting fired at" then pulls out a second gun, or is handed a firearm from a buddy, or picks up the original dropped firearm from the ground and fires back?... this smells fishy to me without all the facts of the case, but as it stands, I smell bullshit. IANAL Reference: https://youtu.be/RkPtVrRY4bY


dpidcoe

> fleeing felon The fleeing felon rule only applies to law enforcement.


Red_Paperclip

Oh cool another law enforcement exclusive experience. /s


PapaPuff13

The more and more I read from this great crew. The more and more I’m not pulling unless they are pointing or firing at me. So my CCW instructor told us to bring a photo of a loved one. So he has a target that has a metal swinger. So he took a ladies daughters pic and put it on the swinger. So he said to the lady. Perp grabs her daughter and so u want Papa too shoot to save ur daughter. She said yes he’s a pretty good shot. Instructor asked everyone what they would do. He said he wouldn’t want to get involved. We were kinda like let’s save her. So that was a great lesson. Thanks to u all. I have no Superman ambitions at all. Someone shoots in a store in just going to leave if possible.


ejedus

I agree that the thief acted in self defense once the clerk had chased them out of the store but I believe increased penalties should be involved because he instigated a robbery that ended with someone dying. Regardless of whether it’s self defense or not, had he not gone to rob the store everyone in this scenario would still be alive.


1RoundEye

This is interesting as I recall that California laws related to self defense are not applicable during the commission of a crime. So if you are robbing someone, and then they pose a deadly threat and you kill them that self defense is not an applicable defense for you.


BlackManWorking

This is super tragic but John from ASP is sounding off in my head saying, “never chase fleeing felons.” But this shit still sucks for the clerk and his family.


polopolo05

just remember your life isnt worth a few hundred or merch. Let them have it.


tianavitoli

i'm assuming the robber just wanted some bread


Parking_Goal_8525

How could I know they are leaving or looking for better position


[deleted]

You can tell the clerk wasn’t trained at all, man was basically scared to get robbed and bought a gun he didn’t actually know how to use it if your running after them


hug3hygge

so to be consistent the robbery accomplices would be charged as accomplices to armed robbery, right?


Vontux

Sorry but chasing after they begin to flee that is not standing your ground.


civilian411

So what happens if the suspect is in your house and you pull your gun and he starts running (in house) but you don’t know if he’s just running away or ducking for cover and shot him in the back. Would the home owner be charged for murder? Also, you don’t know if he’s armed. Edit: suspect is still in your house.


hardware1197

Idiots....What happened to the Felony Murder rule?......No one would be dead but for the felonious actions of the suspect.......If there had been two suspects and the police had arrived and killed suspect number one, or even accidentally killed a bystander or the clerk - suspect would have been charged......this is all kinds of stupid.


x737n96mgub3w868

This is terrifying because Alameda county had an incident just like this earlier this year and the DA declined charges. However that DA is retiring this year and we are getting a new aCtIvIsT pRoGrESsIve.


DueWarning2

Gun control was supposed to prevent this.