Recent shooting justified?


Kaymen

New member
This occurred yesterday at a Walmart in Logan WV. A male approached another subject with a sharp object in his hand demanding his money, subject reportedly had the guy by the neck and made several threats to cut the guys throat. The guy handed over his wallet and the subject was walking away. Guy who has a WV CDP permit pulls his gun and shoots killing subject. Guy is arrested for murder and law enforcement is leaving it up to the prosecutors to figure it out.

Granted not many of us are lawyers and I'm not very familiar with WV laws. But what is your opinion justified or not?

http://www.wsaz.com/mobi/breaking?storyid=128205923
 

dojoman

New member
That will depend on WV law. My guess is if the BG was running away with his wallet then the ccw(in the laws eyes, not mine) was not justified. Now if he fought with the BG while the knife was on his throat, and shot him, I imagine that be in Self Defense. Rarely does anyone whom shoots another in the Back get off on Self Defense. I pray if they do prosecute, the ccw gets at the most, Excusable Homicide.
 

Rich M

New member
Doesnt sound justified. Dude was walking away.

BUT.... The perp now has the victoms wallet and ID and will know where he lives.

If I were on the jury, I would not go hard on the victom.
 

chiefpropellerhead

Chiefpropellerhead
It sounds like he made a poor decision with shooting the man in the back. Maybe he could have alerted store employees or called 911 himself and then use the weapon to detain the man until the police got there. Were there witnesses to the fact that the man put a knife to his neck? This could be one of those cases where having a non lethal weapon available to take the person down until the police arrive would be handy. Shooting someone in the back is never a good option. He will probably spend some time in jail and lose his permit.
 

tbrazzale

New member
Agree, it would depend on WV law. I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV. In my opinion this is, based upon data provided so far, not a justified use of deadly force. In Florida, where I live, the use of deadly force is only justified if you have an immediate fear for your life (expanded castle doctrine defines a break-in while you are home as immediate fear). If the BG was going away and no longer an immediate threat than the shooting would not meet the requirements as I understand them for justifiable use of deadly force. Were he to have turned around and approached the victim again in a threatening manner, however, I believe it would.

This is an example of those of us that are CCW licensed need to be well educated as to the legalities as we will be held to a very high standard. Errors on our part will be magnified by the gun right opposition in the media and used to further restrict the rights of the law abiding citizens legally protecting ourselves.
 

mynes308

New member
If the video backs up the witness statements, this shooting was not justified. Even though he was robbed, the attacker had turned and walked away and the danger was over. The CCW then drew and shot the attacker in the back of the head. Not Justified and is murder.

If he had defended himself while the attacker had the "SHARP OBJECT" to his neck from behind while the attacker was screaming "GIVE YOUR WALLET OR I AM GOING TO CUT YOUR THROAT" it would be a totally different story.

These incidents will continue until WV requires more that just a safety class to obtain a CCW permit. Most people refuse to self-educate themselves on the CCW laws. WV does not require them to be trained on the laws, only a safety class.

In my training classes I distribute a copy of the State published gun laws and a current copy of USA's permit requirements page. After the class, for free, I offer to discuss the laws and it would shock you to see the number of people that say "if it is not required, I am not staying".

Emotions and lack of knowledge will send this man to prison.

Sad for all involved and for all permit holders.
 

mynes308

New member
CORRECT and right on track.
Agree, it would depend on WV law. I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV. In my opinion this is, based upon data provided so far, not a justified use of deadly force. In Florida, where I live, the use of deadly force is only justified if you have an immediate fear for your life (expanded castle doctrine defines a break-in while you are home as immediate fear). If the BG was going away and no longer an immediate threat than the shooting would not meet the requirements as I understand them for justifiable use of deadly force. Were he to have turned around and approached the victim again in a threatening manner, however, I believe it would.

This is an example of those of us that are CCW licensed need to be well educated as to the legalities as we will be held to a very high standard. Errors on our part will be magnified by the gun right opposition in the media and used to further restrict the rights of the law abiding citizens legally protecting ourselves.
 

Punch

New member
Could go either way. There have been a couple of shootings in Omaha where bullets went through the back and the shooter was not arrested, let alone charged. Under our laws, we have to be able to "annunciate" why be believed that we were in fear of death or bodily harm. In the case of an armed fleeing felon, there is nothing to guarantee that he will not turn and shoot before he leaves. It has happened (although this guy was armed with a knife). The fact that he now has your address and personal data and has already had one violent encounter with you could be another factor. I do not know how it is in that particular jurisdiction, but in some people are just sick and tired of crime. Technically, the shooter is wrong. However, it would not surprise me if he was not prosecuted, or if a jury returned a not guilty verdict if he was. I am glad I am not in his position, but I wish I was on his jury.
 
(IANAL) If he had shot while the guy was approaching, justified. Because he shot after the immediate danger was over (the perp had his 'prize' and was leaving,) completely unjustified.

Will the vast majority of the population miss the perp? No. But it wasn't justified, either.
 

Grognard Gunny

New member
Agree, it would depend on WV law. I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV. In my opinion this is, based upon data provided so far, not a justified use of deadly force. In Florida, where I live, the use of deadly force is only justified if you have an immediate fear for your life (expanded castle doctrine defines a break-in while you are home as immediate fear). If the BG was going away and no longer an immediate threat than the shooting would not meet the requirements as I understand them for justifiable use of deadly force. Were he to have turned around and approached the victim again in a threatening manner, however, I believe it would.

This is an example of those of us that are CCW licensed need to be well educated as to the legalities as we will be held to a very high standard. Errors on our part will be magnified by the gun right opposition in the media and used to further restrict the rights of the law abiding citizens legally protecting ourselves.

Exactly. If that means letting a perp leave unmolested, then that is the way it shall be. (I WILL, however, take careful mental notes to give the Police a good description of the perp.)

GG
 

kelcarry

New member
Most if not all answers very clear. Imminent danger to life or great bodily harm is the key. Guy is leaving, no more threat. As others have said, this is up to the prosecutors discretion for criminal charges which are very probable. Civil suits though will be something he also will have to worry about and the costs for same. If the criminal charges are not pursued and it is deemed a self defense shooting (I still want to understand where that comes from), in SC you are immune to civil suits. That does not mean you won't have to pay bucks for an attorney--everyone in this country can sue for anything and a shot in the back as the perp is leaving sounds very real civilly.
 

jameshd

CMFWIC
My opinion, for what it's worth.

Opinions are like a$$-holes - everybody's got one. My personal opinion is that the shooting was justified. However, it was probably not legally justified, since the bad guy was walking away. Of course, knowing what "sharp object" he was holding might make a difference. A knife and a freshly sharpened pencil, while both being sharp objects, are not the same thing.
 

Nightmare45

NRA LIFE MEMBER
Walking away not justified, on approach "drop the knife out loud", pull weapon and cover BG ask for police, or let him walk away without your ID. This poor guy has problems.
 

eaccents

New member
I would agree with most of the respondents: in my layman's (I am not a lawyer) understanding of the law, the shooter must be in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm (or fear for the life or safety of another) in order to use lethal force. When the perpetrator is leaving the scene of the crime, imminent danger has more than likely passed.

Hopefully the shooter, if prosecuted, will find a sympathetic jury. As others have said, we are all pretty sick of being victimized....
 

JimMullinsWVCDL

New member
While we wait and see what else turns up (in cases like this, it may take until a trial (if there is one) before everything comes out, especially if the defendant acted wisely and lawyered up), here's some more legal food for thought. While the case is not necessarily squarely on point, in State v. Harden, 223 W.Va. 796, 679 S.E.2d 628 (2009), our state Supreme Court overruled its previous holding in Syllabus Point 6 of State v. McMillion, 104 W.Va. 1, 138 S.E. 732 (1927) ("Under his plea of self-defense, the burden of showing the imminency of the danger rests upon the defendant. No apprehension of danger previously entertained will justify the commission of the homicide; it must be an apprehension existing at the time the defendant fired the fatal shot."), which results in a more liberal construction of the "imminent" danger element of self-defense.

Depending on what the evidence ultimately shows (and, most importantly, what Mr. Canul said to the police and others after the shooting--hopefully nothing other than "He robbed me and I was in fear of my life. I want a lawyer."), there are possible defenses of self-defense, defense of others (the bad/dead guy, who had just committed an armed robbery with a knife, could certainly be painted as a danger to the other people in the vicinity), and/or citizen's arrest (the WV case law that I've researched so far is rather sparse; other states are split on the propriety of deadly force to effect a citizen's arrest of a fleeing felon).
 

whitetiger

New member
he could have fire lawfully if he belived that the subject was going to stab someone who was in his way.
( defence of others who he belived were in danger.) a armed felon trying to flee with a weapon with people in his way. like someone running in a store with a knife might use if someone trys to stop him. If i am on that jury he is free.
 

inspector455

New member
The BG was leaving so as long as he did not turn back around and threaten the GG there would really be no threat at this point. GG is not justified in my eyes but that's my opinion and going off of our laws here in my state as I understand them.
 

BC1

,
Sorry, not justified. It's a wallet for crying out loud. You're armed? So you get in your car and follow the suspect while talking to 911. Now this guy has a $50K legal bill coming over a stolen wallet. Even mas Ayoob will carry "throw-down" money to get the attacker away. Further, if the attacker ceases to be a threat and retreats you lose justification for defense.

I recommend to all my students that they carry their CCW permit in a simple, plain ID wallet... not in their regular wallet. in some states you guns are registered on the permit. Now the BG knows where you live and what guns you own. Opens you up to home invasion.
 

New Threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
49,394
Messages
623,174
Members
74,219
Latest member
Beto7YT
Top