uh oh.... grocery clerk kills drunken customer who drew

Inigoes · Nov 7, 2014

Blaster229 said:
Is it self defense if you put yourself in a position where you need to use self defense? No LEGAL reason in this world for that grocery clerk to follow this guy outside. Sure it was self defense, but what caused this shooting?

" Mr. grocery store clerk, isn't it true that if you didn't follow this patron out to his vehicle, there would have been no reason for this deadly force to happen?".

It's a yes or no question.

Yes, the caveat: as long as the store owned the property.

A clerk can ask for car keys all day long, the customer can refuse all day long.

If the clerk went over the line, and accosted (physical contact) the man first. It would be a different story. Video would be required to substantiate this theory.

Blaster229 · Nov 7, 2014

For a bunch of people here who want to be left alone with rights and what the hell they want to do with their lives, sure do advocate someone interfering with someone else and what that person wants to do.

Vile Shadow · Nov 7, 2014

Blaster229 said:
Is it self defense if you put yourself in a position where you need to use self defense? No LEGAL reason in this world for that grocery clerk to follow this guy outside. Sure it was self defense, but what caused this shooting?

" Mr. grocery store clerk, isn't it true that if you didn't follow this patron out to his vehicle, there would have been no reason for this deadly force to happen?".

It's a yes or no question.

The issue I'm having here is that the shooting still took place on private property, that being the grocery store parking lot.

I would agree with you though if it were a matter of someone following the guy down the street.

It was the drunk who first chose to escalate matters by drawing first and endangering everyone nearby.

K31 · Nov 7, 2014

I love all of this "the clerk", "dictated", "demanded", "interfered"...

He asked an alleged drunk guy to give him his keys. If you want to talk about "rights" he exercised his first amendment rights. If he was a bum asking for spare change or a born again Christian asking him to find Jesus, he was 100% within his rights in a public place to follow the guy and ask him a question.

They even offered the guy a ride home.

Inigoes · Nov 7, 2014

Blaster229 said:
For a bunch of people here who want to be left alone with rights and what the hell they want to do with their lives, sure do advocate someone interfering with someone else and what that person wants to do.

The incident was only verbal (unless there is proof otherwise), until the drunk pulled the gun.

If I am missing an important detail, I am willing to listen.

Blaster229 · Nov 7, 2014

Inigoes said:
The incident was only verbal (unless there is proof otherwise), until the drunk pulled the gun.

If I am missing an important detail, I am willing to listen.

You are missing the point. Why did the drunk pull the gun?

Leave the guy alone. He left the store. This was not a bar serving someone drinks who had too many drinks and then had the responsibility to get the guy a ride.

The clerk put himself in the position where there was deadly force. No follow out, no deadly shooting. It's simple.

Inigoes · Nov 7, 2014

Blaster229 said:
You are missing the point. Why did the drunk pull the gun?

Leave the guy alone. He left the store. This was not a bar serving someone drinks who had too many drinks and then had the responsibility to get the guy a ride.

The clerk put himself in the position where there was deadly force. No follow out, no deadly shooting. It's simple.

The theft prevention employees, follow suspects to their cars all the time.

I see this as no different, as long as the parking lot was store owned property.

The drunk could have driven off, just as easily.

MikeTF · Nov 7, 2014

fabsroman said:
What right did the employee have to demand the keys and follow the customer out to his car while demanding the keys? Once the customer was out of the store, the employee should have called the police to report a drunk driver IF the customer got in the vehicle. Call the police and give them license plate and vehicle description and leave it at that.

Who knows what the heck the customer was thinking after some store employee follows him to his car demanding his keys. I can see a lot of things wrong with this. The "concerned citizen" went a little too far as far as I am concerned (how do you like that word play?). Wonder how the local authorities would take it if I hung out outside of bars, followed drunks to their vehicles, and demanded their keys from them?

For the record, I HATE drunk drivers. Pretty much dislike drunks in general. Doesn't get much worse than drunks with guns.

I have to respectfully disagree. If someone is clearly intoxicated, the moral and right thing to do is prevent them from driving so that they don't kill themselves or someone else. When seconds count the police will be there in minutes. The employee did the right thing.

ngman · Nov 7, 2014

"Known to show up here from time to time intoxicated" It sounds like there's more to the story and that the employees had dealt with him before, (perhaps in a town drunk kinda way). Therefore he could have felt more comfortable following him to his car trying to get his keys.

With that said, I wouldn't have followed him all the way to his car unless he was a friend or family member. Just close enough to get a tag #.

trickg · Nov 7, 2014

Venge said:
I am that idiot.

And this is why.

I hate drunk driving as much as the next guy, but people have to understand that carrying a firearm comes with new responsibilities, one of which is that you must not escalate any kind of unnecessary confrontation. Whether this is a concept in law is something a lawyer would know. I call it a moral obligation.

The correct thing to do at that point was to call the police. The whole situation just seems unfortunate. That said, I still think that the clerk should not be convicted of murder if the story happened as written, since I guess he really was reacting to having a gun pointed. I am no lawyer, but the words "Negligent homicide" seem to describe this situation.

EDIT: Nah, I Don't even know about that. Gosh this just feels like everyone F***ed up. Maybe it's just something that happened because some guy was drunk and some guy played hero. Oh well, I'm sure we'll learn.

Agree.

Blaster229 said:
Is it self defense if you put yourself in a position where you need to use self defense? No LEGAL reason in this world for that grocery clerk to follow this guy outside. Sure it was self defense, but what caused this shooting?

" Mr. grocery store clerk, isn't it true that if you didn't follow this patron out to his vehicle, there would have been no reason for this deadly force to happen?".

It's a yes or no question.

Aaaaand agree.

trickg · Nov 7, 2014

MikeTF said:
I have to respectfully disagree. If someone is clearly intoxicated, the moral and right thing to do is prevent them from driving so that they don't kill themselves or someone else. When seconds count the police will be there in minutes. The employee did the right thing.

Preventing them from driving and shooting them three times causing their death are two entirely different things.

The clerk should have gotten on the horn to 911, and then tried to distract the guy until the police showed up. Public drunkenness is considered a crime in most places too - he would have been well within an acceptable scope to have called 911 when the guy first came in and started stumbling about.

Inigoes · Nov 7, 2014

trickg said:
Preventing them from driving and shooting them three times causing their death are two entirely different things.

The clerk should have gotten on the horn to 911, and then tried to distract the guy until the police showed up. Public drunkenness is considered a crime in most places too - he would have been well within an acceptable scope to have called 911 when the guy first came in and started stumbling about.

Uhhmmm,

Isn't asking the guy for his keys a distraction?

ngman · Nov 7, 2014

According to the newscast the police where first called when the drunk was inside the store, presumably they were on there way.

trickg · Nov 7, 2014

Inigoes said:
Uhhmmm,

Isn't asking the guy for his keys a distraction?

Sure, but did he call the police first? I didn't see that in the article if he did, although I admit that I read it pretty quickly.

ngman said:
According to the newscast the police where first called when the drunk was inside the store, presumably they were on there way.

Then he should have waited until they got there. That's just my opinion, and what I would have done. Did anyone consider blocking this guy's car in the parking lot until the police showed up? It just seems to me that it escalated pretty quickly.

This wasn't a situation where trouble came knocking on the clerk's door and he had to defend himself with force. This was a situation where the clerk created the situation by harassing the guy, and then shot the guy dead when he pulled a gun to stop the harassment.

Baccusboy · Nov 7, 2014

So you're taking the position that, after having his car blocked, this man wouldn't have:

A. Tried to run over the person blocking the car?
B. Pulled a gun on the person blocking the car?

grayson71 · Nov 7, 2014

Blaster229 said:
I would be that idiot because this is what the lawsuit will be about when the family sues.
It is not for a grocery store clerk to dictate who is drunk and shouldn't drive.

Quite simply if he wouldn't have followed trying to get his keys, he would have not been in the position at his vehicle for this shooting to happen.

I have to agree with this. By following him into the parking lot the clerk himself escalated the situation. As a CCW carrier its one of the first things you are taught, you cannot claim self defense when you have instigated or escalated the situation. Kinda like starting a fight then shooting the guy when he fights back.

I hate drunk drivers, but in this situation i would have reported it to the police.

there may be more to this story, but until more information is made available, this is how i see it

gamer_jim · Nov 7, 2014

You can only defend yourself if a have and imminent threat is present. Of the clerk blocked the car them call the police and report an unlawful detainment.

NormH3 · Nov 7, 2014

grayson71 said:
I have to agree with this. By following him into the parking lot the clerk himself escalated the situation. As a CCW carrier its one of the first things you are taught, you cannot claim self defense when you have instigated or escalated the situation. Kinda like staring a fight then shooting the guy when he fights back.

I hate drunk drivers, but in this situation i would have reported it to the police.

there may be more to this story, but until more information is made available, this is how i see it

Since we are all speculating here and all the facts aren't in yet, what if the drunk with the gun was a person prohibited and had just committed a crime an hour earlier.

We have no idea if the employee would have done the same whether he was carrying or not. He apparently did not draw his firearm until he was drawn upon and defended himself.

The idea that you should allow some visibly drunk person to get into their car and drive away without an attempt to stop them, seems like a no brainer to me.

NormH3 · Nov 7, 2014

Blaster229 said:
You are missing the point. Why did the drunk pull the gun?

Leave the guy alone. He left the store. This was not a bar serving someone drinks who had too many drinks and then had the responsibility to get the guy a ride.

The clerk put himself in the position where there was deadly force. No follow out, no deadly shooting. It's simple.

The drunk pulled the gun because he was drunk. Unfortunately, the guy he pulled the gun on had one as well. Not sure why you don't understand that.

K31 · Nov 7, 2014

And now we add "threatened", "harassed", "blocked" and "detained" to the definition of "asked".

[Ding Dong]

Also, for the record, the store called sheriff deputies.

uh oh.... grocery clerk kills drunken customer who drew

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Head'n for the hills

God loves you, I don't.

...

"Part of that Ultra MAGA Crowd"

Head'n for the hills

God loves you, I don't.

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Guns 'n Drums

Guns 'n Drums

Head'n for the hills

Active Member

Guns 'n Drums

Teecha, teecha

Ultimate Member

Podcaster

Banned

Banned

"Part of that Ultra MAGA Crowd"

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics