...the clerk went too far.

Your copy-and-paste is a bit unclear, but the crux of the story is that Abu-Karsh shot Allen during the hold up, chased the second robber (Hunter) outside and fired several shots at him but missed, then returned to the store where the injured Allen was and finished him off.

Now, I can definitely see shooting Allen the first time. And I can see the argument for chasing after and shooting at the fleeting Hunter (armed felon escaping into the general public with no law enforcement available to stop him).

But unless the video tape shows extraordinary circumstances (maybe the guy begs for death, or goes for his gun, or something) then Abu-Karsh went too far.

And, of course, there could be a racial aspect to the investigation/indictment.

(armed felon escaping into the general public with no law enforcement available to stop him).

Really - please explain how firing multiple times at a fleeing suspect is "self-defense" or even legal.

They must have decent evidence on this guy or they wouldn't have charged him. Frankly, he sounds pretty angry and it sounds like he probably did it.

"And, of course, there could be a racial aspect to the investigation/indictment."

Are you suggesting prosecutorial misconduct without any evidence? I mean, why are you bringing race into the discussion for no reason - no one else even brought up race!

The guy went to far in both shooting at a fleeing suspect and in possibly finishing off the other robber.

If you have reason to believe the person fleeing is both armed and dangerous, (prima facie here) you would be within reason to use lethal force to stop him or her.

Our statute covers both police, people aiding an officer, and just ordinary individuals. Other states may vary.


As for the clerk, there is a possibility that what he did when he re-entered the store was reasonable (injured robber, still armed, etc) but it sounds pretty bad. Reserving judgment until a grand jury can review the facts.

nt

But some states have laws on the books allowing you to use deadly force to keep a person who has committed a felony from escaping.

The caveat is, that if it turns out what he was doing wasn't a felony, you go to jail. "Believing it was a felony" isn't enough.

I don't know what the law is in this case. It's not something I would have done, though. I would have chased him to the front door to make sure he wasn't running for a gun, or for backup, but that's it.


The racial aspect may matter to a jury. Race disparity in sentencing is a fact in America. Of course, it will depend on the jury makeup...

IMHO the whole system of is broken from the gun shop to the prison and back out to society. I actually would think racial disparity would work in the defendants favor

On one hand, a violent felon, almost certainly with a police record and facing a very long jail sentence if arrested again, and on the immediate run from responding law enforcement... yeah, that's a definite danger. Long minutes would pass before a police cordon could be set up and the suspect hunted down.

And during that hunt, the suspect has every motivation to steal a car and endanger others in a high-speed chase, two tons of high-speed steel mixed up among other cars and pedestrians. Or take a hostage, or create some sort of major distraction to escape such as arson. And there's the difficult of apprehension, a definite danger to the cops that have to search alleys and brush to find the suspect.

And the alternative to all of that is the man on the scene shoots the fleeing suspect while he's within range, before he's lost in the neighborhood.




But, that's inherently dangerous too, people thinking they can gun down purse snatchers and the like... stuff that's misdemeanor but enormously irritating and inflammatory.

...one increases the odds of a negative outcome. Most police officers if asked would probably prefer to take such a suspect down by surprise rather than in a siege situation. I think the bottom-line is that it is better to error on the side of caution and not force an outcome.

If you shoot someone in the back while they are running away, they probably were not an immediate deadly threat. that could even be considered second degree murder...although manslaughter would be more correct.

"went back inside and fired more shots at the first suspect, 25 year old Lamar Allen, hitting him in the head, chest and extremities, eventually killing him."

Either he's a REALLY FUCKING BAD SHOT AT POINT-BLANK RANGE, or he was torturing the guy. If you can kill with a head shot, shooting the extremities is utterly useless, torture for personal pleasure. Even if, in the extreme case, killing him was necessary, a single shot would have done it, and the shot fired earlier.

“Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.”

"Do stupid things, win stupid prizes".

The store clerk was the first victim. A 99% working working person, robbed by some bozo's w/a 1% mentality. My sympathies are with the working man.

You support shooting wildly in the street at a guy who is running away and poses no threat. Would you still support him, had he "accidentally" killed a few bystanders during his rampage?
Then you support him for murdering a wounded would be robber. Robbery bad, murder good. Interesting priorities you have.

Don't piss on others.

Your list of blank suppositions validates my opinions on firearm ownership. It seems you've already convicted the victim. I'd be on the jury in a blink. We have a crime problem just off campus w/the small stores getting held up constantly. Students feel like prisoners on campus, small businesses are driven out, we've even had a local shop keeper killed during a robber. So pardon me if I have no sympathy for people who behave like punks. The store keeper was not afraid to stick up for himself.

None of the things you supposed actually happened, please don't ever be on a jury it taints justice.

I also support use of a firearm in situations like this. What I do not support is murder, which is what happened in this case and attempted murder along with public discharge of a firearm. I don't encourage sympathy for punks. Your local crime problems are not going to be resolved by actions like this or attitudes like yours.

I'm sorry but the tolerance and patience of my past 50 years is just about burnt out. I've watched neighborhoods go from bad to worse to completely putrid rotten. When good people stand up and say enough is enough that's when the problems will stop.

Criminals are not stupid, they will prey where the pickings are easiest. Many of these neighborhoods are poor and the business people are just starting out. They are planting the seeds of their dreams and no one should be able to stomp on them or take what is not theirs. At the wake of one of our local shop keeper who was murdered during a robbery, I talked with some of the neighbors. As lean as the store was run the guy always tried to take care of sick neighbors and extended 0% loans between paychecks for groceries. Some of the college kids made fun of him because of his accent and middle eastern hat he wore. He tolerated their verbal abuse full well knowing that the student money was supporting him and his neighborhood good. (He was tolerant.) Two (confirmed) crack heads were looking for free money, he was held up and after the money was handed over he was shot anyways. His surveillance camera system was out of order (couldn't afford to have it repaired.) Luck enough the dry cleaner across the street caught the robbers exiting. The robbers were caught and convicted, the shop keeper is still dead and the neighbors have lost. How can anyone see justice in that?

The sad thing is, when neighborhoods go sour, the students move. Hell they're only 1-4 year renters at best. The community people really want to be there and establish themselves, they want roots and a community like all of us. They shouldn't have to spend their hard earned money on window bars, extra locks, surveillance systems, security lighting, firearms or armed guards. 1%ers can afford that stuff; nobody should have to.

Shit stops when a person is willing to put their foot down and take a stand. The guy in the OP situation took that stand. I hope his neighbors rally around him and put their feet down as well.

So pardon me, my attitude is well founded on solid experience.

If I sound like a hard ass ethnic union labor democrat, it's because my family comes from a long line of them. UFFDA!

It will be easy for the prosecution to argue that the threat had been stopped before the clerk finished off the robber. Others have been sent to prison for that as well.

Nothing can prepare you for the rush of adrenaline that hits your body in such situations. I have disarmed, and been disarmed by, fellow officers after encounters with suspects that leave you with an adrenaline dump. I'm not justifying the shooter in this case but pointing out that it happens and we must try to understand what happens during and immediately after a shooting.

Not enough data to tell from the media piece.

That he may already have been dead is an interesting approach as well.

Shoot to stop, not to kill.

He chased the second guy. Didn't have to go back in. Big mistake.

The simple fact is two armed men decided that this clerk's life was worth whatever money and/or property he was carrying. They were willing to threaten and presumably follow through with killing him to get it.

I just can't muster much sympathy when their victim killed them instead.

Personally I think the law ought to be that if you get killed during the commission of an armed robbery it shouldn't matter how you got killed. Shot in the front, shot in the back, or hung from a tree.

You're advocating murder? Maybe I was right about you and violent fantasies...

Like I said, when someone decides to commit armed robbery, they have made the decision that their victim's life is worth whatever money or property is to be had.

I don't really care if people like that die during the commission of their crime, or how they die.

If two armed robbers are shot dead during the commission of their crime or they are hung while caught in the commission of their crime, what, in practical terms, is the difference? Not much.

When people decide to kill for profit and die in the attempt, I don't lose much sleep over that.

So, throw out the Constitution and the 6th Amendment because it would make you feel better?

But I'm not going to be too upset about armed robbers dying.

...and you defended yourself, wounding and disarming the victim, you would pop a couple more into him because we'll that's your right?

Gotta love that calculation...

Now if armed robbers would make the same calculation we'd be in business.

For example, in many states using a dildo is considered sodomy and is against the law. This has resulted in stores in those states circumventing the law by selling them as "facial massages".

I think people should break that law considering the likelihood of getting caught, the benefits, and the costs of getting caught.

[link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas|Lawrence v. Texas struck down sodomy laws - are people in Alabama still being prosecuted for its violation?

"I think people should break that law considering the likelihood of getting caught, the benefits, and the costs of getting caught."

Good thing all those banksters get away with fraud while the poor sap trying to lift your wallet gets shot in the back and then hung while bleeding out because he deserved it since he decided to break the law. Is there any crime you would risk getting caught doing because you thought it was worth it? Would you illegally Occupy a public park?

That is a false dilemma. No one is saying that because some people can break the law that everyone should be able to break the law. No one is even saying that because people can be killed committing violent crimes that everyone who commits a crime should be killed.

And bear in mind, I'm not even advocating breaking the law. It should not be against the law to kill people who tried to kill you, either during the commission of the crime or immediately after.

I would very much like to see the banksters prosecuted and I am annoyed that Obama is on the verge of making a deal (if it has not been done already) which will give them all immunity from prosecution in exchange for a pittance in fines.

Is there any crime you would risk getting caught doing because you thought it was worth it?

Occasionally I speed. That's the extent of my criminal history.

Would you illegally Occupy a public park?

Not yet. All of my local Occupy movements have been done legally with the generous cooperation of our local City Council. I am not willing to risk arrest over a political movement yet as the professional consequences may be dire. Though I am happy to report that I told my boss what I was involved in and he was supportive, so that is a weight off my shoulders. I've been on television several times with Occupy now and my fear was I would be outed at work.

...either during the commission of the crime or immediately after." - The old take no prisoners answer. I really hope you never served in our military and are not part of our law enforcement organizations. Summary executions are against both U.S. law and against international law except in cases of espionage. That is not a liberal position at all.

I've never been in the military or in law enforcement.

Like I said, I don't think it should be illegal if a man who is attacked by armed robbers kills them. Either during the attack or immediately after.

Basically if you die in the commission of a violent crime, it should be a free pass for whoever did the killing, regardless of the circumstances.

So if someone runs up to a victim and points a knife at them and says, "Give me your wallet!", and the victim pulls out a gun and the criminal turns and runs away and the victim shoots him in the back and kills him, that ought to be a free pass for the victim.

If someone runs up to a victim with a gun and says, "Give me your money!" and the victim draws and shoots and wounds them and they fall down and the victim then puts another bullet in him on the ground, that ought to be a free pass for the victim.

I don't understand all the hand-wringing and concern over people who are trying to kill other people for profit. If you die during the commission of a violent crime, I don't have much sympathy.

...and it seems your bar for losing that value is shockingly low. I would not deny that I would in anger kill a Hitler, or a Mao or Stalin, but I would not kill the common criminal even after they presented no threat to my life. But I must say, this of course is not surprising for someone who considers criminals to be "the enemy." Why do you feel the need to abandon principles of compassion and forgiveness? I think your dim view of the value human life is frankly rather sad. Are you not a person of faith at all?

Threatening or attempting to injure/kill someone is a "shockingly low" bar? What's your bar set at?

Are you now supporting killing a criminal who no longer presents a threat to you out of revenge?

My bar is set very high for the justified taking of a life that presents no immediate threat to other human lives i.e. crimes against humanity.

Do you agree that the man in the OP should get a "free pass" if convicted?

Shouldn't we just execute all criminals since they have "very little value" - after all that is what you're advocating here. I mean, by your logic, since a bullet is cheap and prisons are expensive, we should just have mass executions. Is that not the logic you are using?

I am not willing to go that far. I do not think that just because someone commits armed robbery that if they are caught they should get the death penalty.

In fact, I do not support the death penalty at all - I do not trust the State to have the power of life and death over citizens, especially since they have demonstrated that they have killed innocent people numerous times.

Why, then, do I support citizens from having the power of life and death over their attackers? Because there is a tremendous oversight of such citizens by the State when they kill in self-defense.

So I expect such people of little value to be apprehended and imprisoned by the State. Perhaps some day they will do something to redeem some measure of value to their lives.

What I am saying is that in the heat of the moment if a victim kills their attacker, I am far more sympathetic to the victim than I am to the attacker.

The principle of self-defense is not a license to be judge, jury and executioner.

What century exactly do you live in? Even in the 1800's it was considered murder to shoot a man in the back. You are the "typical vigilante". You just ratchet this shit up every day. First you say you'd shoot anyone throwing a rock at your window, then you advocate using guns on teenage girls with toilet paper in their car, shooting people in the back as they flee and now LYNCHING!
You need to put your guns away and get some serious help.

during the commission of a violent crime, unless you were the victim of that violent crime, which is known as "lynching".

who have a more mature and rational take on this. GreenStormCloud, Logical, rl6214 and ManiacJoe are not members I am often in agreement with, but I respect their viewpoints and I respect their sanity. You might want to listen to their good advice before you decide to start carrying. I think there is a little voice that tells you it would be a bad idea, though. I know you've stated that the reason you don't carry is because you feel no need because of your home's upper middle class location, but that sounds bogus, unless you never leave home. I think your reason is more about your level of self awareness and self preservation, which is good IMO.

That's some pretty good mind reading there, bucko!

The reason I don't carry a gun is simple: It's too much of a hassle for too little benefit.

I live in what I call a middle-class neighborhood. My house cost $270,000 four years ago, and is now worth $90K less than what we paid for it. They are building homes in our subdivision now for $50 a square foot when they were $100 a square foot when we built. About half of my neighbors are minorities, mostly African-American, but one couple is Asian and one couple is from Jamaica.

There is little crime here. Though last summer someone went into our fenced-in back yard and tried to hot-wire my brand new garden tractor. I don't keep the keys in it because I don't want my little children to start it up and get hurt. So they cut a wiring harness on the side of it and tried to hot-wire it, and failed. But I don't really feel that crime is an issue where I live. The failed attempt to steal my garden tractor is my sole experience with crime in my life.

I live 11 miles from work. I do travel "downtown" to the University of Alabama Huntsville for night school, but I don't feel it is particularly unsafe there, though Amy Bishop shot 6 people in the building where I have class.

So basically, the few places I go I don't feel unsafe enough to worry about carrying a gun.

But it's a hassle when you carry a gun, as you have to constantly be aware of the places where guns are not allowed, like UAH, for example. Which means I'd have to plan my day based on any anti-gun places I might be visiting. Also I don't like showing up on a government list of gun owners. I probably already do from having NICS checks performed on me, but in theory those records are destroyed (though I don't believe that they are). Also, since I have children, I'd be worried about making sure that the firearm was on my person at all times and so they did not get a hold of it. My kids are constantly jumping on me or wrestling with me so that would be a concern, too. It's just not worth it.

You might want to read the advice of other pro-carry members who have a more mature and rational take on this. GreenStormCloud, Logical, rl6214 and ManiacJoe are not members I am often in agreement with, but I respect their viewpoints and I respect their sanity. You might want to listen to their good advice before you decide to start carrying.

I have read it. I still don't really care if or how someone gets themselves killed while committing a violent crime, and I don't think any victim of a violent crime should be held to too much scrutiny if they happen to kill someone who was trying to harm them. OK, maybe taking the time to actually hang them from a tree is a bit of an extreme example, but if the guy shoots his attacker in the back as he is chickened out at the last second and ran away, I'm not really upset about that. Likewise if the guy finishes off the criminal after he is down on the grown, I'm not really upset about that, either.

I think there is a little voice that tells you it would be a bad idea, though.

I think you're full of shit. I don't carry out of some secret feeling that I can't handle a gun. I know what the laws are and I know that even in the best-case-scenario if you use a gun in the most righteous self-defense you are probably looking at thousands of dollars in legal fees.

The main reason I don't carry one is it just isn't worth the hassle.

It's the same voice that tells you "maybe taking the time to actually hang them from a tree is a bit of an extreme example".
Meanwhile we're all breathing a great sigh of relief that you don't feel the need to carry. Maybe others who carry could benefit from your reasoning.

But you wouldn't be spiting me, but yourself, your family and the good people of Alabama.

The article does say that there is evidense to suggest that the second volley of shots was not needed in self defense. However, that is just a suggestion by the author regarding unpresented facts.

After the threat is over is isn't self-defense any more.

Your objective is to survive the encounter, not play cop. If the crook is running away and you haven't been shot - YOU HAVE WON. Chasing him could turn a victory into a defeat. You might get shot.

Call 911 and give a good description.

Current "Society In General" does not allow for such actions by the defender. Various jurisdictions may vary.

but of course none of us know all of the circumstances.

There is nothing in the article suggesting that the robbery victim was familiar with his state laws.

Shame on you for displaying bigotry in this forum.

The armed robbers chose to create a situation in which the clerk was in fear for his life. The clerk reacted. No one has the ability to "armchair-quarterback" that reaction which may well be considered a form of temporary insanity.

I am sorry Mr. Allen chose to create a situation that ended with the loss of his life, but that was his considered choice.

I am sorry that the clerk is facing criminal charges, but it is far better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6.

Semper Fi,