A South Carolina prosecutor says an attorney was justified when he shot and killed a robber at an Alcoholics Anonymous club in Columbia earlier this year.The State reported Thursday that prosecutor Barney Giese (guh-ZAY') concluded that 61-year-old James Corley acted in self-defense when he shot and killed 18-year-old Kayson Helms of Edison, N.J.
Giese's decision means to charges will be filed.
The prosecutor says Helms had pulled a pistol when he entered the club April 11 and took the cell phone of one of the people.
Corley says he knew he would be cleared.
When we spoke about this before, I referred to the shooting as a "summary execution." Although some people took strong exception to that characterization of the incident, in retrospect, and considering the prosecutors decision, I think it pretty well describes what happened. Yet, I fully realize that a man carrying a concealed weapon who becomes the intended victim of an armed robbery, cannot be expected to read the robber's mind to understand his intent. So, legally, it's justified.
The problem with the increase of concealed carry activity among the gun folks is that we're going to have an increase of defensive shootings like this. The percentage of armed robberies that turn murderous is very small, so the more defensive killings we have the more unnecessary ones we'll have. That's the problem.
What's your opinion? From what you've read about Kayson, had James Corley not gunned him down, do you think murder would have taken place that day? In other words, if no one but the criminal had had a gun, what do you think would have happened? I'd say, those alcoholics would have lost a few bucks, cell phones and watches and then they would have had their meeting, thanking the Higher Power for their lives. Instead they had a dead kid on the floor of their club bleeding all over the place. And most people are saying "he asked for it."
Please leave us a comment.
"The problem with the increase of concealed carry activity among the gun folks is that we're going to have an increase of defensive shootings like this."
ReplyDeleteuhh yep
More dead bad guys and more live good guys. I fail to understand why anyone would have a problem with this.
"The percentage of armed robberies that turn murderous is very small, so the more defensive killings we have the more unnecessary ones we'll have. That's the problem."
ReplyDeleteBut you yourself just said earlier "that a man carrying a concealed weapon who becomes the intended victim of an armed robbery, cannot be expected to read the robber's mind."
So how can you know if the defensive killings are necessary or not?
"The problem with the increase of concealed carry activity among the gun folks is that we're going to have an increase of defensive shootings like this."
ReplyDeleteNope, no problem there.
So MikeB, answer me this. If someone breaks into your home and threatens your family, would you not try and defend them w/ every means at your disposal because "The percentage of armed robberies that turn murderous is very small"?
Instead they had a dead kid on the floor of their club bleeding all over the place.
ReplyDeleteThat's what mops are for (or steam cleaners, if the place was carpeted).
Why anyone would object to armed robbery becoming a more hazardous "profession" is a mystery to me. Just whose side are you on, Mike?
I think the "increase in defensive shootings like this" serves as long-overdue notice to all would-be criminals that the average person is sick and tired of their crap and are not going to take it anymore. They better think twice before threatening others, because they may very well end up DEAD. The the threat of jail time is no longer the only deterrent to their choice of lifestyle.
ReplyDeleteI refuse to gamble my LIFE on the chance that my attacker MAY not intend to kill me. I don't care what his "intentions" are... if I feel that my life, or the lives of my family, are in jeopardy, I will legally respond with deadly force. If you don't want to risk being killed, don't threaten me. It's as simple as that.
The increase in the number of people legally carrying concealed weapons does NOT constitute a return the the "wild west", but rather the exact opposite. "An armed society is a polite society". We're talking about arming intelligent, law-abiding citizens who's intent is simply self defense... not a bunch of ya-hoos looking to shoot the place up. They've been screened by law enforcement and granted permission to carry a concealed weapon with which to protect themselves (unlike the criminals who walk around armed illegally with the intent of threatening/harming others).
I fully believe that as more intended victims choose to defend themselves in this manner, the rate of this type of crime will fall dramatically.
Anti-gun-rights people will reap the benefits of this as well - whether they like it or not.
Aztec Red asks, "So how can you know if the defensive killings are necessary or not?"
ReplyDeleteYou're absolutely right, I could never know. No one could unless the circumstances were totally obvious.
I'm just figuring there must be cases where it's a close call, and based on the attitude of some of the commenters around here, which I realize are representative of the public at large, the benefit of the doubt usually goes to the victim-turned-shooter.
The AA shooter was not one of these doubtful cases, in my opinion. Yet, I think it would have been better for everybody if he's stayed home that night.
Yet, I think it would have been better for everybody if he's stayed home that night.
ReplyDeleteIf, by "he," you mean the deceased would-be robber, we're in agreement.
"The problem with the increase of concealed carry activity among the gun folks is that we're going to have an increase of defensive shootings like this."
ReplyDeleteUntil it reaches a point where we have less criminal activity because criminals begin to fear defensive shootings like this.
It is unfortunate, but it seems the law can't deal with these vagrants. I am not by any means promoting vigilantism.
ReplyDelete"I'm just figuring there must be cases where it's a close call."
ReplyDeleteAnd who better to know than the responding officers and the Prosecutors? If the defensive shooter doesn't get arrested and charged, or if the DA clears him/her then they're innocent.
I know you often disagree because of your "feelings" and prejudices against gun owners. Unlike you however, I believe in innocent until proven guilty, and the DA is in a much better position than you to make that determination. He has the actual facts and he knows the law.
Katherine, Thanks for the comment. It's a fair reminder for me to watch my ""feelings" and prejudices against gun owners."
ReplyDelete