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

fabsroman · Nov 7, 2014

Baccusboy said:
Fabs, that is all correct, IMHO, right up until the drunk guy pulled a gun on the employee. Would you be legally correct to pull a gun on someone if you were being kept from driving, even if you were not drunk? Even take drinking out of the equation, and there is no justifiable reason why the guy pulled his gun. There was NO THREAT to the drunk guy's life. He COULD have called the police himself, and reported being harrassed, for example. So why didn't he? What made him feel justified to pull a gun?

Police had already been called. We have not been told why. This is a case where someone really stupid got killed for stupidly thinking a gun would solve a problem that a gun was never meant to solve. And he paid for it with his life.

It all depends on what the drunk thought was happening. Would he have been legally allowed to pull a gun on somebody that followed him out to his car and kept asking him for his keys? What if the drunk feared imminent bodily harm because this guy threatened to knock his teeth out if he did not surrender his keys? What if the store clerk actually attempted to grab him?

Most of us would not be happy about somebody following us, much less badgering us for our keys, and only the drunk and the store clerk know exactly how heated the debate got. I doubt the store clerk followed the guy out to his car, the entire time politely asking for his keys so the drunk would not drive and thereby endanger others. Thing is, we only have the store clerk's version of the facts at this point and I am guessing he is painting it like he is Mother Teresa and the Pope all in one, or he called his lawyer immediately after pulling the trigger and he shut up.

There is a lot missing to this story.

Let's flip it some more. I see somebody pull a gun on a guy (i.e., the store clerk) and I shoot the store clerk dead because I believe that I was acting in defense of others. Sadly, I did not see the man in the vehicle reach for the gun in the glove compartment.

Again, there is a lot missing to this story. Just some fine reporting as usual.

traveller · Nov 7, 2014

This is bad because it is exactly the kind of 'blood in the street' incident that people opposed to CCW love to cite.

I can see why the clerk tried to keep the town-drunk from driving, but if you do that you can easily put yourself in harms way. He didn't serve him any alcohol, so none of the dram-shop liability applied either, it is one thing to wrestle with a bar patron if your liquor license depends on it, but following around someone who isn't even your customer is a bad idea.

Baccusboy · Nov 7, 2014

In short, no, I see absolutely no justifiable reason why the drunk could have argued he was in fear of his life to the point where pulling his gun could be considered self defense.

I respect the idea about people getting into other peoples biz too much these days, as Blaster said, but in this situation, we are talking about an obvious drunk wanting to drive off. He could easily plow over a carload of kids down the street. I have a 4 year-old, myself. Glad he was stopped. Sad he died.

And someone did make a valid point about this being private property.

fabsroman · Nov 7, 2014

NormH3 said:
Interesting comment. Let's say the employee didn't pursue and called the cops. Guy drives out of the parking lot and takes out the first car coming down the road. Sort of a moot point at this time.

Most people get CCW permits because it takes police at least several minutes to arrive...sometimes longer.

The employee didn't follow the customer into the parking lot with his firearm drawn. He used it to defend himself when his life was threatened.

Lots of assumptions. Let's assume that the "drunk" wasn't really that drunk, or that the drunk would have driven home just fine, or that the drunk was merely going to his car to get another beer out of the trunk or to sleep it off.

To me, it seems as though the store clerk went out of his way to cause trouble. This would almost be akin to accosting drunks leaving bars and following them until they surrendered their keys because they might do something stupid like drink and drive. Key word here is might.

What it really boils down to is whether the "drunk" felt as though he was in danger from this store clerk following him to his car. We'll have to ask him.

trickg · Nov 7, 2014

Baccusboy said:
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?

I was thinking blocking the guy in with another car. A person standing there runs a risk of getting run over, especially considering the guy was drunk.

And would it have been an unlawful detainment considering that the guy was intoxicated? I thought it was only unlawful detainment if there was no evidence of any laws being broken. Clearly this guy was in flagrant violation of a couple.

Rattlesnake46319 · Nov 7, 2014

Lessons learned:
1) Don't drink and drive.
2) Don't drink and pull a gun.

Blaster has a point about the clerk following the drunk out. However, we're talking about one of those places (read: not Maryland) where people look out and police their own community. Drunk decided to escalate.

Welcome to Jefferson County. This is why Ferguson rioters aren't coming south.

Peaceful John · Nov 7, 2014

Do I have this right?

The "drunk" drove to the liquor store without incident. He had no additional alcohol at the liquor store. It is reasonable to conclude that his return home would be incident free. But the clerk, who had no legal authority, nonetheless demanded the drunk give his car keys to what amounts to a stranger. The drunk demurred and retreated. The clerk followed the retreating drunk and continued with his illegal demands. The drunk finally escaped to his car. Trapped in his car with the driver's door open (there being no evidence the clerk shot through auto glass or body), and temporarily in no condition to protect himself, felt sufficiently threatened by the clerk to act defensively as provided by the Castle Doctrine of at least those states that include "car" as one of the protected areas. (For the purposes of this discussion the assumption is made that Texas is one of those states.) And then the clerk killed him. Is that pretty much how it went?

I guess that's one way to get the keys.

Inigoes · Nov 7, 2014

Peaceful John said:
Do I have this right?

The "drunk" drove to the liquor store without incident. He had no additional alcohol at the liquor store. It is reasonable to conclude that his return home would be incident free. But the clerk, who had no legal authority, nonetheless demanded the drunk give his car keys to what amounts to a stranger. The drunk demurred and retreated. The clerk followed the retreating drunk and continued with his illegal demands. The drunk finally escaped to his car. Trapped in his car with the driver's door open (there being no evidence the clerk shot through auto glass or body), and temporarily in no condition to protect himself, felt sufficiently threatened by the clerk to act defensively as provided by the Castle Doctrine of at least those states that include "car" as one of the protected areas. (For the purposes of this discussion the assumption is made that Texas is one of those states.) And then the clerk killed him. Is that pretty much how it went?

I guess that's one way to get the keys.

from the article: suspected to be intoxicated walked into the store and caused a disturbance.

What we do not know, was there a "no trespass" order against the drunk? Was the disturbance violent to begin with?

Either way, the incident was verbal until the drunk chose the nuclear option. This is more of a stupid games, get stupid prizes scenario.

fabsroman · Nov 7, 2014

Rattlesnake46319 said:
Lessons learned:
1) Don't drink and drive.
2) Don't drink and pull a gun.

Blaster has a point about the clerk following the drunk out. However, we're talking about one of those places (read: not Maryland) where people look out and police their own community. Drunk decided to escalate.

Welcome to Jefferson County. This is why Ferguson rioters aren't coming south.

Policing ones own community borders on being a vigilante.

Ultimately, whether this is legitimate or not really comes down to what happened right before the drunk pulled the gun.

Kind of like in Ferguson. Whether Wilson's shooting of Brown was a good shoot really depends on the facts.

fabsroman · Nov 7, 2014

Inigoes said:
from the article: suspected to be intoxicated walked into the store and caused a disturbance.

What we do not know, was there a "no trespass" order against the drunk? Was the disturbance violent to begin with?

Either way, the incident was verbal until the drunk chose the nuclear option. This is more of a stupid games, get stupid prizes scenario.

How do you know it was only verbal. No video evidence of what happened at and in the vehicle. I didn't read where there were witness statements of what happened. How do any of us know whether the clerk tried to physically take the keys once they were at the car. To follow a man to his vehicle while demanding the keys sounds like a clerk on a mission.

How many of you would actually give your keys to a complete stranger, drunk or not? Most drunks don't even think they are "that" drunk. I'm pretty sure that none of us would be all too willing to give our car keys to a store clerk.

Don H · Nov 7, 2014

How did anyone on scene know the guy was drunk? There are medical conditions that mimic intoxication, Diabetic Ketoacidosis, caused by low insulin levels, comes to mind. That's why paramedics check blood sugar levels whenever there's any kind of altered mental status.

sleepingdino · Nov 7, 2014

It is a difficult to defend a drunk or impaired guy who drew a gun on a grocery store clerk.

Moreover, If the "impaired" man runs over some kids, you can bet the victims would sue the store for not stopping the guy.

Blaster229 · Nov 7, 2014

LiberalsShouldBeTarred said:
And this attitude is what's wrong with society.

The attitude of what? Leaving people alone and not getting involved in something that doesn't affect me?

Blaster229 · Nov 7, 2014

sleepingdino said:
It is a difficult to defend a drunk or impaired guy who drew a gun on a grocery store clerk.

Moreover, If the "impaired" man runs over some kids, you can bet the victims would sue the store for not stopping the guy.

This is total ******** and has no bearing. How can a clerk prove someone was drunk? Who is the witness who saw a "drunk" leave a grocery store and kills someone and doesn't intervene too?

Vile Shadow · Nov 7, 2014

Blaster229 said:
This is total ******** and has no bearing.

How can a clerk prove someone was drunk? Who is the witness who saw a "drunk" leave a grocery store and kills someone and doesn't intervene too?

Not necessarily. I'm sure you know as well as I do that in this age of slip-and-fall lawyers who love to look for any potential big score, someone would definitely try to sue in the scenario he described.

Success however is another story.

kgain673 · Nov 7, 2014

Inigoes said:
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.

I agree with you 100%, but who knows what will happen in court.

Blaster229 · Nov 7, 2014

Sling Blade said:
Not necessarily. I'm sure you know as well as I do that in this age of slip-and-fall lawyers who love to look for any potential big score, someone would definitely try to sue in the scenario he described.

Success however is another story.

This guy walked out perfectly fine. He made it to his car without help. Where was help needed?

traveller · Nov 7, 2014

sleepingdino said:
Moreover, If the "impaired" man runs over some kids, you can bet the victims would sue the store for not stopping the guy.

Based on which theory of liability. Even the police is not liable for failing to stop a crime, how do you think someone could tie a clerk to this ?
Had he sold he guy the liquor, he may be liable under a dram-shop law, how the event is described the clerk was just a bystander until he involved himself.

Vile Shadow · Nov 7, 2014

Blaster229 said:
This guy walked out perfectly fine. He made it to his car without help. Where was help needed?

Apparently it wasn't needed.

But you can be legally drunk while otherwise being able to walk and do things, right?

Depends on your tolerance.

traveller said:
Based on which theory of liability. Even the police is not liable for failing to stop a crime, how do you think someone could tie a clerk to this ?

I'm thinking the clerk wouldn't be the one potentially on the hook civilly, since he is in someone else's employ.

Had he sold he guy the liquor, he may be liable under a dram-shop law, how the event is described the clerk was just a bystander until he involved himself.

Perhaps. But to simply ask an intoxicated person for their keys isn't a crime. Pointing a firearm in response is.

traveller · Nov 7, 2014

Sling Blade said:
I'm thinking the clerk wouldn't be the one potentially on the hook civilly, since he is in someone else's employ.

Nobody would have been on the hook for anything.

Perhaps. But to simply ask an intoxicated person for their keys isn't a crime. Pointing a firearm in response is.

[devils advocate]

He is in his car, someone accosts him, he feels threatened. That's all it takes to be justified, dont even need a stand your ground law. No place to retreat to once you have receded into your car.

This is the kind of case the 'blood in the streets' crowd just loves. Two people who are both justified to 'defend' themselves. Being intoxicated may put you in the wrong under state gun and motor vehicle law, but it doesn't cancel your right to defend yourself. He wasn't carrying the gun on his person, only after he got pushed into a corner by the aggressive clerk he had no other option than taking it from the safe storage place.

Imagine you are in your home, had a couple of drinks and someone kicks down your door. Is your right to defend yourself cancelled because you are 'under the influence of intoxicating liquor' ?

[/devils advocate]

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

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

The one with two L

Teecha, teecha

Ultimate Member

Guns 'n Drums

Curmidget

Active Member

Head'n for the hills

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

God loves you, I don't.

God loves you, I don't.

...

I'm sorry for the typos!!

God loves you, I don't.

The one with two L

...

The one with two L

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics