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

[K31]

Yep. Kind of odd how "the drunk" pulls a gun out first that never got fired. I do believe there are people calculated enough to murder if they are looking for the green light. Not saying that has to be the case here, but I wonder. All the crap about little Trayvon. Zimmerman was getting a beat down, and that was open season in my book, regardless of the "following".

So, somebody points a gun at you, from feet away, and you are armed, you're in fear for your life, you are going to wait for them to take the first shot? Is that correct? Anything else would be murder, versus self defense? Huh.

Also, you find it odd that some who is sober has better reaction times than someone who is intoxicated to the point that several people are asking him not to drive?

 

[Gmercury2000]

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.

Agreed! Exactly what I was thinking.

 

[Schipperke]

So, somebody points a gun at you, from feet away, and you are armed, you're in fear for your life, you are going to wait for them to take the first shot? Is that correct? Anything else would be murder, versus self defense? Huh.

Also, you find it odd that some who is sober has better reaction times than someone who is intoxicated to the point that several people are asking him not to drive?

Well it seems odd the report was the man was inside his car. If I were at someones car window and a gun was pointed at me, I could get away quicker than drawing a gun, or I'd be getting away while retrieving it. If a gun is squarley pointed at you, and you draw, you really think 9 times out of 10 you'd get off the first shot?

 

[traveller]

If you carry, dont get into other peoples business.

 

[Blaster229]

Well it seems odd the report was the man was inside his car. If I were at someones car window and a gun was pointed at me, I could get away quicker than drawing a gun, or I'd be getting away while retrieving it. If a gun is squarley pointed at you, and you draw, you really think 9 times out of 10 you'd get off the first shot?

After reading the 2nd posted story, I can understand a little more about why a clerk or clerks went outside. If it were that big of a disturbance inside I can understand a little better about trying to persuade the guy from not driving and him being there for when the cops arrive.

My issue now is how far ahead was the drunk from the clerk after being outside? Was he right with him walking doing the "arguing" for the keys or was the drunk just to about to get in or was already inside the car when the clerk approached the vehicle?

Good samaritan-ship STOPS when someone is inside their vehicle and you are haranguing/fighting for their keys.
Time and proximity/distance from the first harmful event/contact to the shooting is key to something like this.

 

[K31]

Well it seems odd the report was the man was inside his car. If I were at someones car window and a gun was pointed at me, I could get away quicker than drawing a gun, or I'd be getting away while retrieving it. If a gun is squarley pointed at you, and you draw, you really think 9 times out of 10 you'd get off the first shot?

Yes, he had 3 choices. Stand there and possibly take a bullet, shoot, or try to run and possibly take a bullet. Complicated it seems by there not only being the clerk but some else and the two of them apparently being between two cars.

 

[Blaster229]

Yes, he had 3 choices. Stand there and possibly take a bullet, shoot, or try to run and possibly take a bullet. Complicated it seems by there not only being the clerk but some else and the two of them apparently being between two cars.

Any scenario has me thinking the clerk had his pistol already out.

Standing at the window and driver goes to the glove box, pulls a pistol, I think the driver has the one up on the clerk if the clerk isn't already drawn.
Walking up to the car, they both had guns pulled and the clerk just got his shot off first.

Just as we whittle this incident down, it just seems a little fishy.

 

[Peaceful John]

This is nothing like Trayvon, come to think of it TRAYVON was nothing like trayvon

This guy was fuliflling a civic duty to keep this guy off the road, the guy pulled a weapon and brandished, THAT GUY DID THE RIGHT THING

The ramifications of your statement leave me speechless.

 

[K31]

Forgot to add, now the definition of "asked for" includes "fighting for", "haranguing", in addition to "harassed", "blocked", "detained"...

 

[Blaster229]

Forgot to add, now the definition of "asked for" includes "fighting for", "haranguing", in addition to "harassed", "blocked", "detained"...

How many times does someone "ask" for something before it become all those others, never?
How many times do YOU expect your answer to hold when someone asks you for something?

Keep asking when someone says NO, it becomes harassment. Or how about grabbing for them? Restraining the person?

Where do you draw the line?

 

[grayson71]

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.

see the last sentence of my post, on the surface of this story, this is how i see it

 

[K31]

We have a entry in definition of "ask for" - "restraining".

 

[john_bud]

And was the drunk threatening to shoot the clerks before pulling his gun? That behavior would be typical of a drunk, especially a belligerent drunk.

We also don't know if the clerks has successfully driven him home previously.

 

[Blaster229]

And was the drunk threatening to shoot the clerks before pulling his gun? That behavior would be typical of a drunk, especially a belligerent drunk.

We also don't know if the clerks has successfully driven him home previously.

I have experienced plenty of drunks and "belligerent drunks" in my life. Not 1 have I ever heard say they were going to go shoot someone.
I bet you don't drink or you used to and now you think alcohol is the devil?

So, say he was saying that, the action of the clerk was smart to go out and keep contact knowing there may be gun play?


Doesn't matter if they drove him home before. This time it was so severe they needed to call the cops.

 

[Peaceful John]

"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."

"See the last sentence of my post, on the surface of this story, this is how i see it."

There is a vast dark space between "allow" and "attempt", and that is where the dragons be. If "attempt" ends at "Why don't you let me drive you home?" that's one thing. If it doesn't, if it segues into "allow", as in "I'm not going to allow you to drive away even if I must kill you.", well, that's something else.

I'd be curious to learn where your personal limits are. Personally, I leave such things to the police . . . especially so when they have already been called.

 

[Blaster229]

I'd be curious to learn where your personal limits are. Personally, I leave such things to the police . . . especially so when they have already been called.

I agree. Committing a crime in order to try and prevent someone from committing one isn't allowed

 

[kcbrown]

Either we take it upon ourselves to improve the community by intervening when failure to do so will likely make the community worse (and, hence, intervene to prevent a drunk from driving), or we leave others alone to do whatever they want and refuse to intervene except when there are direct life-and-limb personal consequences to not doing so (and, hence, let the drunk person drive if he so chooses, but intervene when we see immediate danger of life and limb to ourselves or those we have a personal stake in).

There is no reasonable in between. So which is it?

Make up your minds.

 

[Blaster229]

Either we take it upon ourselves to improve the community by intervening when failure to do so will likely make the community worse (and, hence, intervene to prevent a drunk from driving), or we leave others alone to do whatever they want and refuse to intervene except when there are direct life-and-limb personal consequences to not doing so (and, hence, let the drunk person drive if he so chooses, but intervene when we see immediate danger of life and limb to ourselves or those we have a personal stake in).

There is no reasonable in between. So which is it?

Make up your minds.

You cannot illegally detain someone by holding them down and forcing their keys out of their hand. Maybe that would fly with a family member or close friend, but not a stranger nor with someone you may be familiar with as in this case. Friendship doesn't mean they cannot get you charged with assault or some other charge.
Just like you cannot force someone off the road who is speeding in order to keep them from speeding.
Good intentions does not "Put the law" into your hands.

 

[K31]

Oh, oh, new definition alert! Now "asking for" == "holding someone down" and "forcing out of their hand".

 

[john_bud]

I have experienced plenty of drunks and "belligerent drunks" in my life. Not 1 have I ever heard say they were going to go shoot someone.
I bet you don't drink or you used to and now you think alcohol is the devil?

So, say he was saying that, the action of the clerk was smart to go out and keep contact knowing there may be gun play?


Doesn't matter if they drove him home before. This time it was so severe they needed to call the cops.

Lol! How much did you lose on your bet? (Drop it in the church collection plate or charity of choice.) I don't think alcohol is the devil, never quit drinking, but only enjoy in moderation these days. Much more was quaffed slaking an unquenchable thirst in the wild younger days, often in "unsavory" locations. And I will add,not at all while carrying (which I do have a license for cc).

Your first statement makes me laugh. Unlike you, the beligerent drunks I've encountered were all too eager to scream at me how they were "gonna kick your ass", "cut you up" and rarely "shoot your fool ass off".

You also seem to have lept with an assumption the clerks knew he was armed that night. Maybe I missed that information?

The drunks I've encountered were quick to anger, quick to tear the place up, quick to toss punches, quick to scream threats but also quick to change from full belligerence to full contrition. So, no. I don't see it incongruous to both call the cops and offer a ride home.

Did they "have to" try and keep him off the road? Not that I can see. Was attempting to keep him off the road an illegal act? Don't see it that way. It looks like a beligerent drunk chose to threaten people that were trying to minimize his legal troubles. While sad, I wouldn't prosecute the clerks for responding to a deadly threat.