Multiples of errors there.
* Bad guy is shot in the back assumedly upon fleeing (and thus the GG no longer being in imminent fear of his life)...
* ...Even worst he dies of his wound upon being shot in the back. Doh!
* This is just completely dumb!!!
"Johnson says that once she and her husband heard the gunshots, they went outside to check it out.
“We walked out on our back porch,” she said. “Then we got in our car and drove around to find out what happened.”
* And it gets even dumber...
"Jennifer, her husband and their 3-year-old daughter, Alexandra, were safe."
Safe this time but what about the next time they hear gun shots do they take off to go sight seeing amongst the gun shot zone, assumedly with their 3yr. old in tow.
Stupid completely stupid moves by the neighbors.
As for the Baskin Robbins guy he better seek out excellent counsel.
Hmmm - not too sure how that might play out. Scumbag gets his dues but --- was he retreating/running away.Quote:
The medical examiner has ruled that the man who robbed the Baskin-Robbins on Forest Hill Avenue last night died as a result of a gunshot wound to his back.
Jerome Davis, 43, was shot by a store employee during the robbery. The case has been referred to the commonwealth’s attorney’s office to determine if the store employee should face criminal charges.
I would have thought that long ago, Massad Ayoob would have had the legal world on notice that a bad guy shot in the back is not de facto proof that he was fleeing and had ended his threat to the victim.
I've read numerous times (usually courtesy of Mas) that people's instinct to turn from gunshots (as though their back can take the punishment like some sort of turtle shell, I guess) can result in shots entering the back even though the front was presented to the body at the time the shooter decided to fire. And let's not forget that an armed assailant can still have his gun hand pointed toward his victim as he turns to run away from him. That means the threat is still active, even if it means that the defender's shots will strike the back of the badguy.
You'd think that every court in the land would stand informed of this by now.
Correct PJ that is an item that can, but not nearly always, occur.
It'll be up to the GG's very excellent counsel to sell the commonwealth’s attorney’s office on that and to secure forensic and medical experts to support as much during the education & argument phase of the trial.
I wish that guy luck and hope for his sake it's a case of the BG exhibiting a reactive shielding turn of the body.
It is very easy for a BG running from a robbery to turn and shoot while he is exiting...shoot at me...I'll shoot back because I fear for my life...
How many videos have we all seen where the fleeing scumbag fires his weapon as he is leaving? Sorry, but a gunshot to the back means little in an armed robbery...too many variables! OMO
I'd have to agree on the shot in the back thing,initially it looks sketchy, but who knows. I also was really shocked when I read the whole thing about people walking TOWARDS the gun fire. ....that makes alot of sence:blink:
i do not see this as a bad shoot. Did the perp have his gun in his hand as he ran away? If so, he was fair game for being shot in the back. Yes, we know that he brought a BB gun to a gunfight. Is a person who gets a gun shoved in his face supposed to look for signs that it is a BB gun he is looking at?
my only question is... did the BG point his weapon at someone else as he was running away?
There's no end to the idiocy that can happen in our courts.
I'm keeping my fingers crossed for the employee. It may boil down to how liberal the DA is.
Just throwing a scenario up for grabs.... is it possible the BG was holding another employee at gunpoint and the shooter(a second employee?) came from the back of the store and fired in defense of the other employee's life? Nothing was said to indicate that that could be the case. But, knowing how the liberal media works, they probably wouldn't print those facts if it showed the shooter in a good light.