Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

HockeyMusings t1_izkskyn wrote

Reply to comment by Shmorrior in Owner of Maryland gun shop accused of shooting at unmarked police car by kstinfo

No. The interaction started when the gunman started chasing after the vehicle. Then, after the vehicle turned around and tried to leave the site, the gunman intentionally stepped into the path of the vehicle.

Did you watch the video?

1

Shmorrior t1_izl2ig0 wrote

> Did you watch the video?

Yes

> Then, after the vehicle turned around and tried to leave the site, the gunman intentionally stepped into the path of the vehicle.

That's not what I saw. Yes the owner runs into the parking lot, but the police car drives directly at the guy. He didn't go out of his way to alter his initial path. Cop could have turned on his lights from the beginning, just as he did after the shots.

There are numerous examples around the country of police shooting at cars accelerating at them.

1

HockeyMusings t1_izl366q wrote

He does alter his path. He takes two steps to the right while he’s drawing his gun before jumping to the left.

You trying to tell me that the police were trying to run him over and missed? Y’all stretching waaaaay far to reach for something here.

> There are numerous examples around the country of police shooting at cars accelerating at them.

That’s because they are law enforcement, not vigilantes. But that’s pretty irrelevant. Because in this case, the criminal shot as the car accelerated away from them.

1

Shmorrior t1_izl4yrj wrote

> He does alter his path. He takes two steps to the right while he’s drawing his gun before jumping to the left.

Those steps may have been an attempt to avoid getting hit. It's impossible to tell for certain with the camera angle, but those two little stutter steps weren't going to change much in the time it took for the car to close the distance.

> You trying to tell me that the police were trying to run him over and missed? Y’all stretching waaaaay far to reach for something here.

I think it's unlikely the police tried to run him over. But the way things unfolded, it's very easy to see that a reasonable person in the owner's shoes, with the info he had at the time, may have thought a potential robber was trying to do that.

> That’s because they are law enforcement, not vigilantes.

Law enforcement shouldn't have special self-defense privileges.

Tell me how you feel about Breonna Taylor? Should her boyfriend have been charged for shooting (and hitting!) police?

ETA: running after what he thought were (probably) armed robbers casing his business wasn't a wise decision. But neither is sending an unmarked police car to prowl around at 12:30AM during a rash of gun store smash-and-grabs that the police have specifically warned gun store owners to be on the look out for. I don't think a criminal charge against the guy is warranted because there is pretty clear evidence that the owner thought he was reasonably defending himself, at least enough for reasonable doubt to exist.

1

HockeyMusings t1_izl6vgy wrote

He has a duty to retreat.

And he can’t claim self-defense when he is chasing someone. See: https://i.imgur.com/exKYYCR.jpg

The police were on a routine patrol. Which is what you would expect them to do on areas of increased criminal activity.

A reasonable person who a suspects there is a robber in the area would call the police, give them a description of the vehicle, and the direction it is heading. At 12:30 in the morning with limited traffic that should be easy enough for them to find it.

As for what you think, it’s irrelevant. A judge has ruled the charges are warranted and that he be held without bail because he is a danger to the community

0

Shmorrior t1_izlfrqn wrote

> He has a duty to retreat.

If safe to do so. Cars are faster than people and it's hard to retreat if one was accelerating towards you.

> And he can’t claim self-defense when he is chasing someone.

It doesn't appear that he fired until the car was already driving towards him. If he was firing at the car when it was initially driving away, I'd agree that his life wasn't in danger at that time and the shots wouldn't be lawful.

> The police were on a routine patrol. Which is what you would expect them to do on areas of increased criminal activity.

In a marked cruiser, sure. Rolling up unmarked, by your lonesome, while on the lookout for gangs of armed robbers is risky.

> A reasonable person who a suspects there is a robber in the area would call the police, give them a description of the vehicle, and the direction it is heading. At 12:30 in the morning with limited traffic that should be easy enough for them to find it.

As the saying goes, when seconds count, the police are minutes away. All parties involved seem to agree that the owner mistook the cop for a potential robber intent on robbing the gun store as had been done in multiple recent incidents. A 'description of the vehicle and direction its is heading" isn't immediately helpful if you think that vehicle is full of armed robbers intent on robbing you right now.

> As for what you think, it’s irrelevant. A judge has ruled the charges are warranted and that he be held without bail because he is a danger to the community

As we all know, the justice system is always right. Shit, why even have a trial? If a judge thinks he's dangerous, just march him right to prison!

3

HockeyMusings t1_izlqjvc wrote

> If safe to do so. Cars are faster than people and it’s hard to retreat if one was accelerating towards you.

He was chasing them. Which, if on the lookout for armed robbers, is certainly not retreat. It’s vigilante justice.

> It doesn’t appear that he fired until the car was already driving towards him. If he was firing at the car when it was initially driving away, I’d agree that his life wasn’t in danger at that time and the shots wouldn’t be lawful.

Did you even watch the video? He shot it after it went by. It’s clear as day in the video. And the holes are in the back of the SUV. Even without the video that’s beyond dispute. Unless they have boomerang bullets now. Do they have boomerang bullets?

> All parties involved seem to agree that the owner mistook the cop for a potential robber intent on robbing the gun store as had been done in multiple recent incidents. A ‘description of the vehicle and direction its is heading” isn’t immediately helpful if you think that vehicle is full of armed robbers intent on robbing you right now.

If you think a vehicle is full of armed robbers that’s the exact moment your duty to retreat begins. You can’t chase after a car you think is full of armed robbers, shoot at them, and claim self-defense. That, and the fact he shot after they had passed, is the exact reason he is in jail with no bond. Your views on the justice system aside. It’s crystal clear textbook first-degree assault.

1