Mother-daughter duo shoot would-be robber in their liquor store

[Vox]

Depends on which state. Nothing in their statute shows that a business person or home owner has a requirement to let the attacker flee. Just because the attacker is fleeing doesn't mean they won't return, as demonstrated in the video.

Oklahoma's statute:
B. A person or an owner, manager or employee of a business is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if: 1. The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle, or a place of business, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against the will of that person from the dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle, or place of business; and 2. The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred. . . .

C. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

D. A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter the dwelling, residence, occupied vehicle of another person, or a place of business is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.

E. A person who uses force, as permitted pursuant to the provisions of subsections B and D of this section, is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes charging or prosecuting the defendant.

F. A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force, but the law enforcement agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

Seriously?????

You are pushing some dangerously bad information here.

This law is about self-defense. Once a perp is fleeing there is no need for defense--the threat is over.

I can tell you unequivocally that if you shoot a fleeing perp you will not only be charged with that crime, but you will be liable in civil court for damages to the perp.

Yes, they deserve to be shot.

No, you can't shoot them once they are fleeing and no longer a threat.

YOUR LIFE MUST BE IN DANGER IN ORDER FOR YOU TO USE DEADLY FORCE.

A FLEEING PERP DOES NOT PRESENT A DANGER TO YOUR LIFE.

Now......if you want to do it and face the consequences, fine......but you shouldn't spread information that might cause someone else to do it and go to jail.

So stop.

 

[camlok]

All in a day's work for the sickest country on the planet. Not at all surprising that a lot of the comments reflect that it is the sickest country on the planet.

 

[NonoBadDog]

Seriously?????

You are pushing some dangerously bad information here.

This law is about self-defense. Once a perp is fleeing there is no need for defense--the threat is over.

I can tell you unequivocally that if you shoot a fleeing perp you will not only be charged with that crime, but you will be liable in civil court for damages to the perp.

Yes, they deserve to be shot.

No, you can't shoot them once they are fleeing and no longer a threat.

YOUR LIFE MUST BE IN DANGER IN ORDER FOR YOU TO USE DEADLY FORCE.

A FLEEING PERP DOES NOT PRESENT A DANGER TO YOUR LIFE.

Now......if you want to do it and face the consequences, fine......but you shouldn't spread information that might cause someone else to do it and go to jail.

So stop.

You are arguing your standards. You aren't arguing legal standards. Your whole premise fails when you state that "A FLEEING PERP DOES NOT PRESENT A DANGER TO YOUR LIFE". That isn't your's to determine. That is based on the perception of the person that is in the situation. In Colorado, pretty much the same as Oklahoma, if the guy is in your house and you feel threatened it's all over for the guy, regardless what they are doing or what direction they are going. The only requirement for deadly force is a perceived threat, period.

 

[GDViking]

No, if he is FLEEING the premises he is not a legitimate target.

He can only be shot if he presents a direct threat that makes you reasonably fear for your life and a fleeing perp is not sufficient for that key criteria.

So you can read his mind and know he was not going to turn and shoot? Personally I don't read minds so I would shoot at the first opportunity. If he threatened my life is armed and on my property with my money in his hand I don't give a **** if he is facing me or not, this is not the old west.

I would be willing to bet their store does not get stuck up again anytime soon.

Btw the castle doctrine is not only for self defense it is intended for person to be able to protect their property.

Here in Wisconsin we had a guy shoot a kid hiding on his screen porch running from an underage party that the shooter reported. The kid was unarmed on his knees hiding, no changes filed...

 

[GDViking]

No, if he is FLEEING the premises he is not a legitimate target.

He can only be shot if he presents a direct threat that makes you reasonably fear for your life and a fleeing perp is not sufficient for that key criteria.

You are confusing self defense with castle doctrine/stand your ground laws, completely different criteria as to what is legal.

 

[Vox]

You are arguing your standards. You aren't arguing legal standards. Your whole premise fails when you state that "A FLEEING PERP DOES NOT PRESENT A DANGER TO YOUR LIFE". That isn't your's to determine. That is based on the perception of the person that is in the situation. In Colorado, pretty much the same as Oklahoma, if the guy is in your house and you feel threatened it's all over for the guy, regardless what they are doing or what direction they are going. The only requirement for deadly force is a perceived threat, period.

It's not my standard, it's a legal standard.

The threat to your life must be what a reasonable person would consider a threat.

A fleeing person is simply not a threat and no reasonable person would deem a fleeing person a threat.

Therefore, you go to prison and may end up in the same prison as the perp and his friends.

Good luck.

 

[Vox]

You are confusing self defense with castle doctrine/stand your ground laws, completely different criteria as to what is legal.

Wrong.

There is no confusion.

Read the above post.

Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine allow you to defend yourself and your castle......BUT NOT TO PURSUE AND KILL A FLEEING ENEMY.

Nobody cares if you think he might come back and kill you.......that's speculation and not a reasonable fear.

 

[GDViking]

You are arguing your standards. You aren't arguing legal standards. Your whole premise fails when you state that "A FLEEING PERP DOES NOT PRESENT A DANGER TO YOUR LIFE". That isn't your's to determine. That is based on the perception of the person that is in the situation. In Colorado, pretty much the same as Oklahoma, if the guy is in your house and you feel threatened it's all over for the guy, regardless what they are doing or what direction they are going. The only requirement for deadly force is a perceived threat, period.

Exactly so just because the gun is not pointed at you that particular second you are to assume the threat is over?

If he hit the door and saw a squad car pulling In it would have turned into a hostage situation.

These women did exactly the right thing ( although somewhat less precisionly tactical) I don't think they would even be charged in a non castle doctrine state.

 

[GDViking]

It's not my standard, it's a legal standard.

The threat to your life must be what a reasonable person would consider a threat.

A fleeing person is simply not a threat and no reasonable person would deem a fleeing person a threat.

Therefore, you go to prison and may end up in the same prison as the perp and his friends.

Good luck.

He was still on the premise, he was still armed they did not pursue, they were both behind the counter. He was only disarmed after he was shot and then he still attacked, and you are arguing that because his back was turned the threat was over?

He threatened their lives they obviously perceived a threat and acted legally and accordingly.

 

[GDViking]

Wrong.

There is no confusion.

Read the above post.

Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine allow you to defend yourself and your castle......BUT NOT TO PURSUE AND KILL A FLEEING ENEMY.

Nobody cares if you think he might come back and kill you.......that's speculation and not a reasonable fear.

Bs. If my daughter is standing next to me and there is an armed man in the room that just threatened her life I will speculate all I want.

I would love to argue this case with you in front of a jury....
Edit: yoi are speculating yourself that he was fleeing, he may have been going to lock the.doors. Speculation is a two sided coin.

 

[Vox]

Exactly so just because the gun is not pointed at you that particular second you are to assume the threat is over?

If he hit the door and saw a squad car pulling In it would have turned into a hostage situation.

IF......IF......IF.......I repeat, the law doesn't care about "ifs."

Does a fleeing perp constitute a threat?

The law says no.

I'm not going to go round and round with you about this......you are simply wrong.

 

[NonoBadDog]

It's not my standard, it's a legal standard.

The threat to your life must be what a reasonable person would consider a threat.

A fleeing person is simply not a threat and no reasonable person would deem a fleeing person a threat.

Therefore, you go to prison and may end up in the same prison as the perp and his friends.

Good luck.

I have had numerous conversations with our local deputies (over coffee at our dining room table) about this exact scenario. If I find myself in that situation I will not go see any charges. Show me the legal standard, from Oklahoma, where if a person is facing away form you that you aren't allowed to shoot them. I think Montana had a law that specified that if a person was trying to flee it would be illegal to shoot them. If that is a legal standard then it would be in a law. Present it. All the rest of your argument is just opinion until then.

 

[GDViking]

IF......IF......IF.......I repeat, the law doesn't care about "ifs."

Does a fleeing perp constitute a threat?

The law says no.

I'm not going to go round and round with you about this......you are simply wrong.

Fair enough get back to me when these two ladies are charged, then you can tell me I'm wrong.

 

[Vox]

I have had numerous conversations with our local deputies (over coffee at our dining room table) about this exact scenario. If I find myself in that situation I will not go see any charges. Show me the legal standard, from Oklahoma, where if a person is facing away form you that you aren't allowed to shoot them. I think Montana had a law that specified that if a person was trying to flee it would be illegal to shoot them. If that is a legal standard then it would be in a law. Present it. All the rest of your argument is just opinion until then.

I hope your deputy friends come and have coffee with you when you're in prison.

 

[NonoBadDog]

I hope your deputy friends come and have coffee with you when you're in prison.

You find that legal standard yet?

 

[GDViking]

IF......IF......IF.......I repeat, the law doesn't care about "ifs."

Does a fleeing perp constitute a threat?

The law says no.

I'm not going to go round and round with you about this......you are simply wrong.

One more point if you were in the school in Florida and saw an armed cruz running for the door afer witnessing him shoot multiple children would you or would you not shoot?

 

[Skeptic Bob]

One more point if you were in the school in Florida and saw an armed cruz running for the door afer witnessing him shoot multiple children would you or would you not shoot?

That isn’t the same. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that somebody on a shooting spree is enroute to kill more people. No prosecutor would charge you.

 

[Bodi]

Shouldn't the clerks already be armed? Weapons on hips? Poor girl kept trying to reach for a gun under the counter.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

As a liberal, I have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with the actions of the mother-daughter team except to say that both of them should have aimed for the HEAD the very first shot, and kept aiming for the head each time. Head and heart are the two places you need to aim for.
And yes, more stopping power. No...not an AR-15, too unwieldy, just a larger round with more power.
A Mak 9X18 double tap to the face would have dropped him like a bad habit. Just empty the clip and reload, he's robbing your place of business.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Shouldn't the clerks already be armed? Weapons on hips? Poor girl kept trying to reach for a gun under the counter.

There's disadvantages to shop keepers open carrying.

If a would be robber knows that you're open carrying, they won't enter and demand you get down, they'll just shoot you preemptively, possibly even through the glass before they enter if possible. Then they'll empty the cash drawer while you're dying on the floor.

Guns for self-defense aren't a 100% guarantee you will win, it's just an equalizing factor. You're still in danger anyway, because having a gun isn't magic. If it was, just SEEING that you have a gun would stop any robber, which as you can see, is not the case.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

He was still on the premise, he was still armed they did not pursue, they were both behind the counter. He was only disarmed after he was shot and then he still attacked, and you are arguing that because his back was turned the threat was over?

He threatened their lives they obviously perceived a threat and acted legally and accordingly.

Oklahoma?? At the very worst they will be handed a mild sentence which will be immediately suspended, and they will be advised as to how it may be expunged, a slap on the wrist.
Castle doctrine also applies to your own place of business as well. You have a right to be there and you are conducting lawful business, they are not and they do not have your permission to be there, and they are a threat to any reasonable person's way of thinking.

I'd love to see someone else in this position as they ask the perp if "he is STILL armed"...as if they would get an answer.
"Oh well, we can't shoot you anymore, come on back in and have a soda, it's on us! Need a Band-Aid?"

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I'm beginning to suspect that the shotgun was not even loaded or non-functioning.

And a reasonable person would have known that how, by asking the perp?
This is bordering on the absurd.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

LOL!

They were missing him at close range.

That's the point. Handguns do that quite often......a rifle, not as much because you're holding it with two hands.

Wrong again, handguns don't do that quite often, shooters do.
Gun rangers exist for TRAINING purposes.
When you look at your grouping and it's tight and well arranged, then you know that your handgun will NOT do that.

 

[Mason66]

There is possibly some truth to that statement.

If they shot at him as he was leaving that first time after he took the cash.......he no longer presented a threat and therefore they had no justification for shooting at him.

If he was still pointing the shotgun at them as he left......THAT would be a threat to their lives and shooting would be justified.

Kind of mysterious......he came back WITHOUT the shotgun.....that was incredibly lucky for them.

Many mistakes in this incident.

1. Possibly shooting at him as he was leaving.
2. Inaccurate shooting.
3. Failure to keep shooting (you don't stand around talking **** with the perp--you empty your gun into him).
4. The daughter fired a shot that almost hit her mother.
5. The daughter backed off and got on the phone when the man was wrestling with her mother......she should have closed and put one in his head while he was focused on her mother.

6. And most important......failure to have superior firepower. Their cute little guns didn't do the job. If they'd just had an AR-15 in a cabinet behind them the perp would have been killed or disabled at their first shot or by one of the 20 rounds that would follow in three seconds.

He was a danger to every person on the street with that shotgun in his hand.

I doubt these two will have a problem from a legal stand point.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Looked like the older woman was using a snubby revolver. Maybe only a .32 caliber.

She'd be better served with a 9mm or a BDA 380.