who agrees with this DA - who doesn't and why?

[Biggie Smiles]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-robbery-suspect-killed-store-clerk-not-charged-murder-victim-didnt-act-self-defense">https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-r ... lf-defense">https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-robbery-suspect-killed-store-clerk-not-charged-murder-victim-didnt-act-self-defense

[Shen Li]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-robbery-suspect-killed-store-clerk-not-charged-murder-victim-didnt-act-self-defense">https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-r ... lf-defense">https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-robbery-suspect-killed-store-clerk-not-charged-murder-victim-didnt-act-self-defense

I disagree. He went there to commit a robbery with a weapon. Killing the clerk who defended himself isn't self defense.

[Anonymous]

WTF?  That's some bullshit.

[Dove]

https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-robbery-suspect-killed-store-clerk-not-charged-murder-victim-didnt-act-self-defense">https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-r ... lf-defense">https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-robbery-suspect-killed-store-clerk-not-charged-murder-victim-didnt-act-self-defense

I disagree. He went there to commit a robbery with a weapon. Killing the clerk who defended himself isn't self defense.

 ^^^ This. Same.

[Dove]

Here is where its complicated though. In my world...morally....if you go onto someones property with a weapon and intent to wrong them?  Take what you get.



 It is however....illegal use of deadly force to shoot someone as they are fleeing.  So at that point, by law, the clerk became the aggressor.  If the clerk is the aggressor here and the punk is trying to flee...that punk now has a legal claim to self defense.



 I dont agree with it as a person....but the law is the law and this little shitty punk has a self defense case.



 So morally?  I disagree.



 Legally?  Yeah...its a solid claim.



 CA is really laying a lot of gnarly stress onto business owners. Smh.

[Biggie Smiles]

Here is where its complicated though. In my world...morally....if you go onto someones property with a weapon and intent to wrong them?  Take what you get.



 It is however....illegal use of deadly force to shoot someone as they are fleeing.  So at that point, by law, the clerk became the aggressor.  If the clerk is the aggressor here and the punk is trying to flee...that punk now has a legal claim to self defense.



 I dont agree with it as a person....but the law is the law and this little shitty punk has a self defense case.



 So morally?  I disagree.



 Legally?  Yeah...its a solid claim.



 CA is really laying a lot of gnarly stress onto business owners. Smh.

Dead on.



Self defense is exactly that. Defending yourself from personal injury or death. A hard argument to make when your assailant is running in the opposite direction from you as you are opening fire on him.



Morally it is outrageous as no sane person wants to see animals like this get away with murder when they are the original aggressor but we have to keep in mind that in the blink of an eye roles can change in these circumstances and the aggressor can become the victim depending on action/reaction.



In this instance that is clearly what happened. As much as I hate to say it that robber, as he was attempting to flee, bleeding of a gunshot wound had as much of a right to defend his own life by any means necessary as any of us would.    



As much as it pains me to say it, the Liberal scum in California got this one right.

[Dove]

If someone is fleeing.....you gotta let them flee.



 It's the same reason why even IF Rittenhouse showed up to start shit (which he didnt...but of he did)....once he was fleeing, he had the right to shoot those aggressing on him.



 You simply cannot peruse or try to harm someone who is fleeing. You have to leave them alone or you become the aggressor and they have the right to defend themselves.



 Doesnt matter why you are perusing them. They now have the right to stop you from pursuing them.

[Odinson]

Self-defense quickly turns into 2nd degree murder if you are not careful.



I dont know the details.





You could argue that he remained an active threat since he was armed.

[Biggie Smiles]

Self-defense quickly turns into 2nd degree murder if you are not careful.



I dont know the details.





You could argue that he remained an active threat since he was armed.

And it seems according to California law the felony was still in progress and the clerk was justified in using deadly force while in pursuit  due to a very surprisingly generous stand your ground law



so what this means is that California is so fucking backwards that they get it wrong even when they manage to get it right