Wednesday, August 26, 2009

The Unarmed Store Clerk

The New York Daily News reports on the incredible battle which took place between an unarmed store clerk and an armed robber, all captured on video.

A tough Bronx store clerk was shot twice during a wild wrestling match with a gun-toting robber - and a surveillance camera captured the entire, minute-long smackdown.

The courageous clerk took two bullets to his left leg during the bitter hand-to-hand combat but managed to rip the gun out of the fleeing perp's hands.

The dramatic clash unfolded Sunday when the suspect walked into a clothing store on Southern Blvd. shortly before 2:30 p.m. and approached the counter, flashing a hangun.


Rarely do we have the opportunity to see the action like this. If in the last seconds of the video, he had shot the fleeing crook in the back and killed him, what would you say about that? I'd say it would be murder and frankly I'm surprised that's not what happened. Immediately following a life and death struggle, with adrenalin pumping, to show prudence and good judgment in gun management is exemplary, to say the least. Perhaps the Harlem shopkeeper and the Oklahoma pharmacist could learn a lesson from this. What do you think?

Please leave a comment.

12 comments:

  1. If a criminal is killed in the commission of his crime, I will not shed a tear.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'd say it would be murder and frankly I'm surprised that's not what happened. Immediately following a life and death struggle, with adrenalin pumping, to show prudence and good judgment in gun management is exemplary, to say the least.


    In a violent attack, I don't think a defender should be required to act perfectly, and be second-guessed later by people with hours or days to find fault. The person starting the attack bears almost all of the blame for all but the most egregious behavior of the defender.

    If as you say a reasonable person is likely to shoot, then it is still part of the defense--even in cases where in hindsight the defender could have safely stopped. Unless the attacker gives the defender time for careful reflection, that cannot be the standard.

    It appears to me that the recent pharmacist case is an example of having enough time to reflect, and still making a bad choice. I still place the majority of the blame on those who planned the robbery, rather than someone who made a bad decision reacting to a situation he did not ask to be involved with in the first place.

    You can not instantly tell if someone has given up, or if they are merely running for a more advantageous position to continue their attack.

    How much additional risk is a defender obligated to take in order to preserve an attacker's life?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Roberta, Thanks so much for coming by and leaving a comment. I'm honored, really.

    I'm often accused of being too concerned with the criminals and I realize you don't share those sentiments, but what we're really talking about is the proper comportment for the gun owner in a sticky situation. I do shed a tear, figuratively speaking, when a young boy with a gun gets shot dead for doing something stupid. But what fascinates me most is the line which Sevesteen described beyond which the lawful gun owner should not pass.

    Thanks again for coming by.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Given that you have not lived in the States for a couple of decades and are essentially an alien to present American culture, Mike, I don't think you're even equipped to understand my comment or Sevesteen's.

    IMO, anyone who sets out to commit a felony -- and holding up a drugstore is not something that happens by accident --, especially an armed felony, has accepted the risk that their venture may prove fatal. That being the case, it is far better that the fatality is the criminal and not his victims.

    I don't think the State should have the power to execute people: the judge and prosecutor are not present when the crime is committed. But if every would-be felon was shot dead by his or her intended victim in the course of the attempted crime, it would be a boon to society. It's not about vengeance or even justice, it's about pest control.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "anyone who sets out to commit a felony -- and holding up a drugstore is not something that happens by accident --, especially an armed felony, has accepted the risk that their venture may prove fatal."

    Agreed Roberta. Call it an "occupational hazard" of being a violent criminal.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Roberta said, "Given that you have not lived in the States for a couple of decades and are essentially an alien to present American culture, Mike, I don't think you're even equipped to understand my comment or Sevesteen's."

    Well, you're certainly not the first to bring this up. Actually I find Sevesteen fairly easy to understand, believe it or not, but comments like, "it's about pest control," and Mike W.'s "it's an occupational hazard," I find a bit difficult.

    ReplyDelete
  7. What's "difficult" about it Mike?

    If you choose a life of violent crime you might one day choose a victim who fights back and kills you. You've chosen violent crime as an occupation. The chance that your intended victim might shoot you is an "occupational hazard."

    What's so hard about that.

    ReplyDelete
  8. MikeW,

    MikeB seems to believe that criminals seeking to kill, maim or rape shouldn't have to fear for their lives.

    ReplyDelete
  9. My idea is capital punishment is wrong even in the worst case, and criminals should only be shot and killed if they pose a lethal threat to their intended victim.

    What's so hard about that?

    ReplyDelete
  10. criminals should only be shot and killed if they pose a lethal threat to their intended victim.

    Lethal threat, or would a lifelong crippling injury be sufficient?

    Better to let a rapist finish, if all he wants is rape?

    If I find a large man is beating my wife up--he probably won't kill her. How long do I have to let the beating go on before I can shoot?

    ReplyDelete
  11. "How long do I have to let the beating go on before I can shoot?"

    Good question. If someone assaults me do I have to let them beat me to a pulp before shooting them?

    Maybe you can take that beating, but I've already had my jaw broken once, so allowing myself to get pummeled in the face isn't really an option.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Sevesteen and Mike W., You guys are right, to stop a rape in progress or a vicious beating, if shooting is the only way to do it, fine. But, I would say they're already covered by "lethal threat" because those crimes can easily escalate to murder in the blink of an eye.

    It's the fleeing criminal getting shot in the back that I object to.

    ReplyDelete