IMO these laws are borne out of an attempt to prevent if not lessen the degree of vigilantism.Yes, though I think this is complicated by the fact that the clerk was beaten with the bat first. He then managed to seize control of it from the assailant, and when the assailant fled the store, I assume being chased by the clerk, he was struck with the bat repeatedly.
I think most people in a situation where they've been assaulted by a crackhead wielding a bat, if they managed to get control of said bat, would be naturally inclined, due to the nature of the situation, to use this bat on the perpetrator, even if he turned tail after his "plan" went sideways.
This is where there's a clear divide between what many feel is "right" and what is legally "right". The idea that in an armed robbery, the perp can somehow become the victim because their plan was poorly executed and/or they weren't prepared for resistance, seems preposterous. They were the one who made the decision to undertake this criminal exercise in the first place, one would expect that they should bear the brunt of the fallout from that decision. But of course that's not how the law sees it.
I must assume that the clerk, freshly assaulted, had no training, legal or otherwise, on proportional response or how to temper his emotions and maintain self control while under duress. After all, if he was trained as a peace officer, he wouldn't be manning the counter of a convenience store at 1:45AM. I think this should have been factored into the decision making process that resulted in him being charged and held. I certainly hope it is factored into his court case.
Store clerk charged after taking thief's baseball bat and beating thief
- Thread starter OVERKILL
- Start date
- Status
IMO these laws are borne out of an attempt to prevent if not lessen the degree of vigilantism.
It wasn't just a property crime. The robber first assaulted the clerk with the bat. The general rule is that if you feel your life is in danger or there is a threat of bodily harm you are allowed to respond. If the clerk can articulate a reasonable assumption that the robber could return and continue the assault he would be justified in defending himself (at least in my state.)
Yes it was. Robbing is a property crime. The suspect wasn't in the store to just beat up people. In any case Florida has a "Stand your ground" law however that law no longer applies if you pursue someone. If the clerk hit the robber with the bat during the struggle in the store there would be no issue.
You can't shoot someone in the back because you "think" they may go grab a gun.
Wrong, once the robber assaulted the clerk it was no longer just a "property crime", as you will see when the robber is charged not just with robbery but also with assault and battery. And I said the clerk would have to articulate a reasonable assumption, not just "think", there is a difference legally. I didn't say the clerk was justified based on what has been posted, I said he would have to meet the definition I gave in order to have a legal justification. And I am a retired LEO so I speak from experience.
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Unfortunately, the "revolving door" policies that let criminals out to perpetually re-offend, driving up crime rates, increases the likelihood of vigilantism. These policies are at odds with each other.
In a scenario where people feel safe and crime is a rarity, trying to prevent vigilantism by means of legal constructs that levy penalties for doing so, is likely reasonably effective. However, as our downtowns descend into crime-ridden hell-holes; cesspools of crime and drug abuse, where an increasing number of citizens fear to tread and anxiety is at an all time high; where average people are exasperated by the state of things, they are more likely to feel the pressure of self preservation, and they will be less inclined to consider legal implications, because those implications don't appear to apply to those making them feel unsafe.
Part of driving society away from "frontier justice" and things like public hangings was the concept of prompt justice through competent and effective law enforcement, that made the average citizen feel safe and that things were being properly handled. With a legal system seemingly devolving into one that's more focused on the rights of the criminal, where umpteenth chances are given to serial offenders and those charged with assault and weapons offences are released on bizarre perversions of "compassion" due to their "situation", it should not be surprising that citizens are pulling away from the idea that things are being properly handled, as they no longer feel safe. The consequences of this are quite predictable.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
The robber is subjected to additional charges but the original intent was to rob the store. My point was that it started as a property crime. Oh and good luck with a clerk having a "reasonable assumption" to pursue the robber. "But officer, I was afraid the robber would run home, grab his gun and come back and shoot us all!!" That sort of BS doesn't always fly nor should it.
Mental illness is part of it. In the US at least states were straining under the expense of housing the mentally ill and in the 1960's-70's there was a move to try to get these people out of the hospitals and obtain treatment vis a new array of prescription drugs. It hasn't worked out so well.
Another issue is knowing who is in the right. For example if you see two guys fighting in the street and one is taking the worse of it will you intervne? Will you shoot the guy who's giving the beat down? What if you did shoot the guy and found out that the guy you shot was a father and beating up the neighbor who was found out to be molesting kids?
Last edited:
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Yes, mental health treatment, shifting most of it to outpatient from inpatient, definitely didn't help matters and I've written on this bit before. However, the drug use epidemic seems to have turbocharged the scene, as homeless populations are exploding in size, with more and more of them just seemingly emerging from the ether. While not all homeless are drug addicts, or criminals, there is an obvious uptick in both drug addicts and criminals as part of this crisis. And it is a crisis at the juncture.
The scenario you described is precisely why Joe Average shouldn't be playing impromptu law enforcement. This is why it is imperative that we get things back on track, so that we aren't seeing scenarios play out where people are shooting others in public because they are perceived as a threat, even if no obvious threat was present. Goes back to my point about fear of self preservation. People driven to react by fear often don't react in ways that serve their long-term best interest.
Last edited:
Yep.
I was reading somewhere a couple of years ago that chronic MJ use can push young people who are unknowingly predisposed to mental illness over the edge. It's especially concerning with todays product which contains "turbocharged" levels of THC(sp?).
'Criminal law enforcement' exists to prevent the disasters associated with vigilante justice.
I won't comment on today's political climate. I will clearly state we've known for at least 4,500 years, that for a civilization to remain a valid society, those who can not, or 'will not' behave, must be removed from society, from among us the civilized. In years past, the methods of elimination were often brutal. Incarceration is far more humane.
The associated costs are essential to survival. The experiment has been run so many times, always with the same results. There is no need to run the experiment again.
Crime and theft, even seemingly minor in nature, or when covered by insurance, will destroy a city. As retail shops flee, so do the jobs.
Last edited:
here's his mistake: "Police say the clerk followed the suspect out of the store and allegedly struck him"
Shoplifting is a property crime. Walking into the same store with same intent to shoplift, with a bat in your hands, is clearly more than just a property crime.
AKA "the accomplice"... otherwise he would have still been there.
My question-when does a "property crime" committed with a bat become "robbery", or "assault with a deadly weapon", or "attempted murder"?? Is it only when the clerk or owner is on the ground with massive head trauma? There's some "undercharging" going on with these robberies lately!
It sounds like this young clerk while fighting for his life, lost his senses temporarily and over reacted. Perhaps it cannot be justified under the law, but one hopes the court is lenient unless there is evidence of calculated intent to cause serious injury.
- Status
Similar threads
