Self-Defense?

[Bapak2ja]

Found this on another forum and thought it merits analysis by the experts on . Personally, I think it is a justified shooting. You assault someone with others backing your play (video says the attacker had two friends with him), you take the consequences. There is no law that says one must respond to a physical assault (a punch) with with the same type of physical assault (another punch). In my mind, the man received what he deserved.

OK, what do you think?

Houston Store Clerk Defends Himself, Caught on Tape

 

[cbseniour]

The fact that the clerk opened the locked door for the assailant will hang him. It shows that he wanted the confrontation too.. He could have left the door locked walked away and called police then it the assailant broke in he would be more than justified in shooting him.

 

[Bapak2ja]

The fact that the clerk opened the locked door for the assailant will hang him. It shows that he wanted the confrontation too.. He could have left the door locked walked away and called police then it the assailant broke in he would be more than justified in shooting him.

That will be a challenge to overcome. The defense will have to show that he was trying to talk the man out of his combative attitude, but it will be a tough sell.

 

[Indy Wing Chun]

The fact that the clerk opened the locked door for the assailant will hang him. It shows that he wanted the confrontation too.. He could have left the door locked walked away and called police then it the assailant broke in he would be more than justified in shooting him.

Plus he unlocked the door with gun in hand. Plus, he had been shot before in a robbery. A lawyer could try to make the case that the clerk was seeking "revenge" more than anything.

Against multiple opponents, even if they are unarmed, I believe you have the right to use deadly force to defend yourself. Even if this is considered self-defense, I don't think the clerk made wise choices preceding the shooting.

 

[Bapak2ja]

Unlocking the door was not the smartest thing to do, but does that give the other guy the right to assault him?

You are right, though, a prosecutor will have plenty of ammo to build a case against the shooter.

 

[Tinner666]

Form the article in the link above, it says he drew after being punched in the face.
"
Alexander Calloway, 21, and his two cousins were trying to enter the gas station on Martin Luther King and Belarbor around 3:30 a.m., but the store was locked.
The young men got into an argument with the clerk, who unlocked his door and came outside, police said.
Someone punched the clerk in the face and the clerk pulled out his gun and shot Calloway in the stomach, according to HPD."

Read more at Houston Store Clerk Defends Himself, Caught on Tape

 

[michaeladkins]

What was the guy thinking by unlocking the door. To me, he wanted to fight, but he brought a gun to a fist fight! This will be a tough case for the defendant. Wow - self defense or not. Did the guy who got punched, know if the clerk had a gun. Stupid!

 

[Indy Wing Chun]

Form the article in the link above, it says he drew after being punched in the face.
"
Alexander Calloway, 21, and his two cousins were trying to enter the gas station on Martin Luther King and Belarbor around 3:30 a.m., but the store was locked.
The young men got into an argument with the clerk, who unlocked his door and came outside, police said.
Someone punched the clerk in the face and the clerk pulled out his gun and shot Calloway in the stomach, according to HPD."

Read more at Houston Store Clerk Defends Himself, Caught on Tape

They can WRITE whatever they want, watch the video. The clerk already has the gun in his left hand when he pushes open the door with his right. After being punched, he then immediately starts to bring the weapon up.

That is why video is much more reliable than witness testimony and participant afterthoughts.

 

[Tinner666]

I didn't see the video. ActiveX is turned off. My bad.

 

[Hornett]

Having the gun in his hand does not, in my mind, make the shooting premeditated.
He might have been thinking that the gun being in plain sight would be a deterrent to violence.
However, now that he has shown the gun, there is a very real possibility that the bad guy will take it away from him for nefarious purposes.

On a related note, ANYBODY who punches a guy holding a gun is really really stupid.
I would be in fear for my life at that point for sure.

The clerk can take a punch. That's for sure.

 

[cosermann]

Did he have the gun out, in hand when he was punched? It sort of looks like that on the video. Looks like he just raised his hand.

Lots of factors could play into this and I'm sure there's much we don't know (even whether the article is accurate) that could swing this either way.

However, let's suppose he didn't do anything stupid (like unlocking a door that was locked), he had the gun out (i.e. the others knew he was armed), and there were 2 or 3 folks involved in this. Then, I can see the following argument being made:

If an altercation with an unarmed BG is imminent, and you draw your weapon to a low ready (or whatever your training describes as a ready defensive position), and the BG continues to attack...You can make some assumptions.

1) He knows that I have a deadly weapon in my hand because he can see it.
2) He can reasonably assume that I know how to use it and that it is not an empty threat.
3) I don't know anything about this person. He may be a thug, a retired Navy Seal, SAS, KGB, Honor roll student, etc.
4) In that situation I know nothing about what training he has, but he knows something about the training I have.
5) No one would continue to attack if they thought they had a major chance of losing.
6) Because the bad guy is pushing the attack he must be confident enough in his skills that he can still win the altercation even with me holding a gun.
7) He has enough training to win the attack unarmed against an armed gunman.
8) The only way to stop him is to kill him.

(The BG having a friend or 2 there only strengthens this line of reasoning; especially points 4-7.)

This is all just for the sake of the sake of thinking things through realizing we don't have all the facts. If if comes out that the shooter did some things that appear as though he didn't do what he easily could have done to avoid the situation, the above could be moot.

The idea is from one of Ayoob's Judicious Use of Lethal Force videos.

Same idea was expressed in this thread for reference (post 46):
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...defense/143375-whos_right_and_wrong_here.html

And here:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...en_unconsious_in_his_driveway_in_hammond.html

And here:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...fense/36038-the_wont_back_down_situation.html

 

[Bapak2ja]

Did he have the gun out, in hand when he was punched? It sort of looks like that on the video. Looks like he just raised his hand.

Lots of factors could play into this and I'm sure there's much we don't know (even whether the article is accurate) that could swing this either way.

However, let's suppose he didn't do anything stupid (like unlocking a door that was locked), he had the gun out (i.e. the others knew he was armed), and there were 2 or 3 folks involved in this. Then, I can see the following argument being made:

If an altercation with an unarmed BG is imminent, and you draw your weapon to a low ready (or whatever your training describes as a ready defensive position), and the BG continues to attack...You can make some assumptions.

1) He knows that I have a deadly weapon in my hand because he can see it.
2) He can reasonably assume that I know how to use it and that it is not an empty threat.
3) I don't know anything about this person. He may be a thug, a retired Navy Seal, SAS, KGB, Honor roll student, etc.
4) In that situation I know nothing about what training he has, but he knows something about the training I have.
5) No one would continue to attack if they thought they had a major chance of losing.
6) Because the bad guy is pushing the attack he must be confident enough in his skills that he can still win the altercation even with me holding a gun.
7) He has enough training to win the attack unarmed against an armed gunman.
8) The only way to stop him is to kill him.

(The BG having a friend or 2 there only strengthens this line of reasoning; especially points 4-7.)

This is all just for the sake of the sake of thinking things through realizing we don't have all the facts. If if comes out that the shooter did some things that appear as though he didn't do what he easily could have done to avoid the situation, the above could be moot.

The idea is from one of Ayoob's Judicious Use of Lethal Force videos.

Same idea was expressed in this thread for reference (post 46):
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...defense/143375-whos_right_and_wrong_here.html

And here:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...en_unconsious_in_his_driveway_in_hammond.html

And here:
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...fense/36038-the_wont_back_down_situation.html

Great analysis! Thanks for the links! I see a lot of future study here!

 

[CountryBoy19]

Disclaimer, the details I was getting weren't very clear but pause the armchair quarterbacking for a minute and consider that the confrontation may not have been violent until after he unlocked the door. The article says the men were trying to get into the gas-station not break-into the gas station. If it wasn't violent it is possible they were trying to gain entry for a number of reasons including but not limited to getting help or fleeing from somebody trying to do them harm. At that point the clerk goes to the door with gun in hand (as he should do at 3:30 am as a precaution) and after unlocking the door things turn south.

I'm not judging anybody here but I think it's entirely plausible that the clerk was just trying to see if these guys needed help and it back-fired on him...

 

[cosermann]

Yup, the devil is in the details.

 

[Jakob]

IMO the guy got what he deserved. Maybe he shouldn't have gone to a private business and started yelling at the clerk through the glass, and then violently punched the guy in the face.

Sorry, but I don't have sympathy for a gangbanger with his "buddys" trying to cause trouble.

 

[Jakob]

it doesn't matter "how it went down" or what the "clerk" did. He opened the door wondering what on earth this guy needed, and the guy was threatening him, and the clerk getting punched in the face is further proof that the guy was there to cause trouble. The fact that his gangbanger buddies were armed is only more proof. Why does society keep trying to protect criminals??? Only in America would a gangbanger be able to walk around and punch an innocent clerk in the face, just to be "defended" when the clerk retaliated for his personal safety

 

[Tnichols00]

I think we are missing a lot of details to determine if this was justified or not.


I do however think we should go out and protest the Black Panther party, never has a seen such a racist ignorant group in my life.

 

[dingodog]

Based on the limited information I've seen and read, I think the clerk was justified.

But, the assailant and his buddies were there to distribute bibles.