Welcome to Common Gunsense

I hope this blog will provoke some thoughtful reflection about the issue of guns and gun violence. I am passionate about the issue and would love to change some misperceptions and the culture of gun violence in America by sharing with readers words, photos, videos and clips from articles to promote common sense about gun issues. Many of you will agree with me- some will not. I am only one person but one among many who think it's time to do something about this national problem. The views expressed by me in this blog do not represent any group with which I am associated but are rather my own personal opinions and thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, December 28, 2011

Should the guys with the guns get to decide about work place safety violations?

In my recent blog post, I wrote about the tragic events over the holiday week-end leading to the deaths and injuries of 34 people. By the way, the 3 year old Minnesota boy who was shot by a stray bullet has moved from the injured column to the dead column. Senseless. But then, as usual, the gun rights extremists who comment on my blog, love to catch me up and try to "one up" me by sending me articles about people using guns in self defense or to stop robberies or other crimes. Never mind that mayhem and shootings are occurring every day in our communities. Hardly anyone wants to comment about that. Instead, they try to change the subject by finding some article about what they consider a justifiable use of a gun to avoid having to deal with the carnage caused by bullets. Such was the case when one of my readers sent me an article about an Indiana Kroger's food store worker who "saved the day" in an attempted robbery at the store by bringing out his own gun and shooting the robber in the face. You can see the back and forth on the linked post above. 

Here is more on the matter in this article.
Police aren't saying anything more until the investigation is complete, including whether the "hard object" was a gun.  
(...) Records suggest Elliott at one time had a carry permit for a gun, but it's uncertain whether that's still the case because lawmakers recently changed the law to make such information confidential.
(...) Gun owners aren't necessarily trained in how to deal with dangerous situations. If another employee one day fires a gun and accidentally hurts an innocent person, the company could become liable if it's thought to be permissive of workplace weapon use, said Blickman, a partner in the labor and employment group at Ice Miller.
Indeed, that's why many companies have a no-guns-allowed rule in the first place.
"It's one of the most commonly adopted rules," Blickman said, "whether you are a large employer or a small employer."
Disciplining or firing the employee is no easy fix either, Blickman said, "given that most people are likely relieved at the outcome."
Kroger has to be wondering whether coming down hard on the employee could lead to a boycott, Blickman said -- or worse. "What if there's an organized effort by the NRA?" 
What? An organized effort by the NRA? You're kidding, right? So the worker, who violated his company's work rules and possibly state gun laws should not be disciplined because the NRA will cause a fuss? Folks, I submit to you that, once again, the guys with the guns make the rules. Where is common sense?

And further:
"I would hope that employers would recognize that their employees have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," Tomes said. "If they chose a policy that jeopardizes any of those, they have to accept the responsibility."
And, I would add, the right to shoot somebody over "stuff". There is much more to come about this case as it is under investigation. Was the store employee justified in the shooting? Did the robber intend to shoot someone to kill? Did the robber have a gun? Is this a shoot first situation where a shooting is justified for self defense or the inevitability of bodily harm? Would the robber just have gotten the employee into a place where he could have taken money with no harm? And why aren't we doing more to keep felons from getting guns in the first place? Where is common sense?
 
 

75 comments:

  1. "Was the store employee justified in the shooting? Did the robber intend to shoot someone to kill?"

    Yes.

    "Did the robber have a gun?"

    Doesn't matter. The robber intended for his victim to believe that he had a gun. Any reasonable person in that situation would perceive a deadly threat.

    "Is this a shoot first situation where a shooting is justified for self defense"

    Yes.

    "or the inevitability of bodily harm?"

    Where'd that "inevitability" come from? It's not in any statute I'm aware of, nor has it ever been part of Common Law.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It should be "intention" of bodily harm.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "I would hope that employers would recognize that their employees have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," Tomes said. "If they chose a policy that jeopardizes any of those, they have to accept the responsibility."

    So denying the employee the right to defend his "right to life and liberty" is the answer to defending his right to life and liberty?

    What the heck? That's Orwellian.

    Cut's both ways right? If the employer is denies the employee the right to defend himself, then the employer ASSUMES the responsibility for the employee's safety.

    In this case, would you have supported the right to sue Kroger for failing to provide adequate security?

    How about every employee having the right to sue anytime they are robbed in the work place?

    You can't have it both ways.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Are employees robbed often in the work place? The reason for the no guns in the work place is just as it is stated in the article. Too many things can go wrong. Guns are not needed by all employees and customers in grocery stores, malls, etc. You may recall all of the incidents I have written about when permit holders have shot themselves on the way into stores with their own guns. Or the incidents of accidental discharges in the work place or public places. We will find out more about this case, as I said. Until then, time to sit on it and wait.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Here's another article about store clerks and guns- http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2825118/posts

    ReplyDelete
  6. japete writes:
    "And, I would add, the right to shoot somebody over "stuff". There is much more to come about this case as it is under investigation. Was the store employee justified in the shooting? Did the robber intend to shoot someone to kill? Did the robber have a gun? Is this a shoot first situation where a shooting is justified for self defense or the inevitability of bodily harm? Would the robber just have gotten the employee into a place where he could have taken money with no harm? "

    In the end, I don't have a problem with a company, a private employer, having a rule about not having weapons at work. You can choose not to work there if this bothers you. That said, the company will have to stand by its decision and policy in public - and a lot of folks won't be happy if there is disciplinary action taken against this employee for what he did. They'll likely see protests and boycotts if they do - but that happens over all sorts of issues, not just gun rights.

    In regards to your other questions, Indiana law is not the same as Minnesota law - it's far more clear cut on the use of deadly force.

    I worked in law enforcement in Indiana - IC 35-41-3 is the applicable criminal code relating to the use of deadly and reasonable force.

    If the individual who was shot and killed was indeed committing a robbery, or any type of forcible felony, deadly force can be used even if a weapon or gun was not present. If the facts of the case are as disclosed in the original article linked above, then this is a clean use of deadly force by the individual - and we will not see criminal charges.

    The latest update indicates that we will not hear word on this for a few days pending prosecutorial review after the police have finished their investigation.

    ReplyDelete
  7. japete writes:

    "Are employees robbed often in the work place?"

    Yes, they are. Far too often for my tastes.
    b

    ReplyDelete
  8. japete writes:

    "Are employees robbed often in the work place?"

    Nearly every month one of ours gets hit to/from the bus, light rail, etc...the last one was shoved to the ground and broke her nose.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Is this in the actual work place or going to and from work?

    ReplyDelete
  10. japete writes:

    "Is this in the actual work place or going to and from work?"

    Does it matter? A crime is a crime. If a person is disarmed by company policy and takes public transit to/from work, they can't just leave it in their car in the parking lot.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It matters because my post is about work place violence and whether people can carry guns. Did you read the post?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thankfully, my boss allows me to carry a gun at work. I deliver pizza part time, climbing on the list of dangerous jobs. There have been 3 delivery drivers robbed in our area in the last 2 months. 2 of those were at knife point. It's a sad commentary on our society when I have to carry a gun just to be safe on the job. The best solution of course is when these miscreants are caught, tried and found guilty, lock them away forever.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yes, it is a sad commentary. I choose not to carry and seem to be going about my life just fine.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I read your post (as I read all your posts) - you're again failing to see a prime reason why someone 'might' want to carry a firearm at work -- for their commute. The workplace 'might' not be dangerous, but their bus/train ride or walk home might be.

    The safest place for my handgun is on my hip.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Where do most of the gun homicides and gun injuries occur Pat? Mostly at home or close to homes in neighborhoods- not so much on bus rides or walking home at night.

    ReplyDelete
  16. If the details in the article are true, then it's a clear cut case of justified self defense.

    The law and common sense doesn't require anyone to be a mind reader or a fortune teller and predict whether or not a robber is going to hurt his victims. By the time such harm becomes "imminent", it's usually too late to stop it. The fact that the robber appeared to be armed, acted like he was armed, and was clearly capable of harming his victims during the robbery was all the justification the employee needed.

    It's true Kroger's has a right to set their own workplace rules and discipline or fire the employee if he violated them. At the same time, all customers have a right to show their objections to said policy by taking their business elsewhere, as I certainly would do if I lived in that area.

    A consumer boycott due to Kroger's irresponsible actions is a perfectly legitimate response, and if the NRA wants to help organize it, they have every right to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Where do most of the muggings and assaults occur Joan? Grocery stores, parking ramps, light rail, bus stops...

    ReplyDelete
  18. " It's true Kroger's has a right to set their own workplace rules and discipline or fire the employee if he violated them" How does this fit with a consumer boycott?

    ReplyDelete
  19. As usual Pat, you are talking about muggings, etc. I am talking about shootings and gun deaths.

    ReplyDelete
  20. japete writes:

    "Where do most of the gun homicides and gun injuries occur Pat? Mostly at home or close to homes in neighborhoods- not so much on bus rides or walking home at night. "

    What source are you using for this information?
    b

    ReplyDelete
  21. thestaplegunkid9 writes: " It's true Kroger's has a right to set their own workplace rules and discipline or fire the employee if he violated them"

    japete writes: "How does this fit with a consumer boycott?"

    Like any other protest - if we don't like the actions of a business, individuals can protest. I expect Kroger will see protests if they take action against this individual.
    b

    ReplyDelete
  22. And we are talking about protecting ourselves from muggings, which can be deadly. Muggers can use guns. Or knives. Or any weapon. We use firearms to protect ourselves. In your article, the only shooting was in protection of another.

    Kroger's has a right to set policy. People have a right to agree or disagree with said policy and act accordingly. Everybody has choices.

    ReplyDelete
  23. How does this fit with a consumer boycott?

    It seems like once a month I hear of a boycott for some reason or other. That is the consumers right to not shop at a place for making whatever decision. For example during the Wisconsin protests there were lists of stores to boycott because they donated to Walker. Both are well within their rights.

    Here is what can happen when the manager follows the rules and trusts that a robber will only take the money

    http://www.wthr.com/story/16404294/kroger-reviewing-fatal-shooting-by-store-manager

    ReplyDelete
  24. Obfuscation -- you asked for reasons someone would carry a firearm at work. I gave you one, for protection during their commute.

    ReplyDelete
  25. No Pat- I am talking about within the work place and you are talking about the commute to and from work- different.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Bryan- glad you asked- this is one older study- http://www.endgunviolence.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=%7B0D44C5F1-C425-4ACA-B209-0D51F4F97474%7D&DE=%7BCBC8379A-D930-4B9D-95EF-05BDDD5A099E%7D

    and http://bradycampaign.com/studies/view/180/
    http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/pdf/ss/ss5904.pdf " The majority of homicides were
    related to interpersonal conflicts. Crime was a factor in approximately one third of all homicide/legal-intervention deaths, with
    robbery being the primary circumstance. These findings are
    consistent with other research on homicide. Arguments and
    conflicts are immediate motivations for the majority of both
    male and female homicides in the United States (19). One
    factor that distinguishes male from female homicides is the
    relationship between the victim and the perpetrator. In the
    United States, approximately one in three homicides of females
    is committed by a current or former spouse or partner (20).
    Among male homicide victims, approximately 5% are killed
    by intimate partners. The findings of this report indicate that
    male homicide decedents were more frequently killed following arguments or conflicts with persons other than an intimate partner or for other reasons (e.g., crime or drug-related)
    whereas more than half of homicides involving a female victim
    involved intimate-partner–related violence"

    ReplyDelete
  27. japete writes: "How does this fit with a consumer boycott?"

    It fits in becuase customers have a right to show their dissaproval for Kroger's policies and actions. You make it seem as if the Kroger bosses being concerned about the consumer response to what they do in this situation is an example of "guys with the guns making the rules", but it isn't.

    It's Kroger having to take into consideration the desires and preferences of their customers, just as every private company always has to do. That is common sense.

    ReplyDelete
  28. There's more to come about this case.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Perhaps, but what we know now is that a violent repeat-offender criminal who was let out of prison after serving less then half his sentence was killed in the process of committing armed robbery with what he claimed was a gun.

    For the sake of argument, let's say all the those things are confirmed by the current investigation. Would you find anything objectionable about the manager's actions? (other then violating company policy, which isn't a crime)

    ReplyDelete
  30. Thats woeful single-mindedness Joan. I carry at work to protect my whole life -- not just that period of time when I'm at work. My commute, lunchtime, etc...

    Of course, in places where it is expressly prohibited, I have complied with the property owners wishes -- or successfully had the out-dated policies changed.

    ReplyDelete
  31. If it's found to be a legal case of self defense and the robber was armed and meant to kill them ( which we really can't know) then that is what it is. We also can't know how it would have turned out if the manager didn't have a gun. That's the problem with these situations. Perhaps it would have been an armed robbery and no one got hurt.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "Perhaps it would have been an armed robbery and no one got hurt."

    Did you just suggest that we should all comply with a criminal who threatens you?

    How traumatized would you be Joan to have a criminal threaten you? People who are assaulted in such a manner frequently have difficulty sleeping, engaging in relationships, and simply being out in public. They very often require counseling to regain a "normal" life again.

    No such "incident" EVER results in "no one getting hurt". To suggest otherwise is not "common sense".

    ReplyDelete
  33. Come on Pat. That's ridiculous. Armed robberies occur every day where no one gets hurt. People rob banks and no one gets hurt. People rob places of business and no one gets hurt. The robber goes away with the money and no one is hurt. People are robbed ont he streets at gunpoint and give the robber what he/she wants and walk away without their money or their jewelry and no one is harmed physically. I would be traumatized by an incident. I would suggest that the manager who shot the robber could be having trouble sleeping. Taking another human life is traumatizing. We have thousands of military with PTSD for that reason. I was traumatized when my sister was shot to death.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "Perhaps it would have been an armed robbery and no one got hurt."

    Of course, the only way to find out is if he hurts someone - and then it's too late.

    ReplyDelete
  35. "People are robbed ont he streets at gunpoint and give the robber what he/she wants and walk away without their money or their jewelry and no one is harmed physically."

    Like the middle aged woman in South Minneapolis who gave the mugger her purse and was pistol whipped for her "compliance"?

    I suppose the pistol-whipping with the accompanying stiches and broken bones was better than if she were to have defended herself.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I didn't say those things don't happen. You said no such incident EVER happens when no one is harmed. That is simply not true.

    ReplyDelete
  37. japete writes:

    "If it's found to be a legal case of self defense and the robber was armed and meant to kill them ( which we really can't know) then that is what it is. "

    It's legal even if the robber wasn't armed. Robbery with or without a weapon is a forcible felony - the use of deadly force is legal in Indiana in that situation.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I stand behind my previous statement. If you have an incident where someone is threatened with physical violence -- there may be no physical harm, but the emotional scars may run very deep.

    Of course, you're welcome to submit to your aggressor. Thats the wonderful thing about human rights - I wouldn't dream of telling you how to respond to such an incident.

    ReplyDelete
  39. I am not defending robbers or burglars or whoever is trying to steal something but don't think they all deserve to be shot to death over it. What about a teen-ager who is stealing a bike from your garage? Does he deserve to die for it? That is a problem. It might even be your own kid.

    ReplyDelete
  40. The robber in this case wasn't killed because he tried to steal money. He was killed for threatening the life the manager's fellow employee with what he claimed was a gun. Whether or not it really was a gun is a non-issue. The robber acted like it was, and the manager had no reason to think it wasn't.

    As I said before, the law does not require a victim of violent crime to be a fortune teller or mind reader in order to take defensive action. You said it yourself. There is no way to know what the robber was going to do. Because of this, the manager had every right to use deadly force to protect himself and his fellow employees before the robber had a chance to hurt them.

    Your are acting as if the manager should have waited until he or one of his workers was shot before fighting back. On what planet does that make sense?

    ReplyDelete
  41. I love the way you do this. You are very very good at it. "I am not defending robbers or burglars or whoever is trying to steal something but don't think they all deserve to be shot to death over it. What about a teen-ager who is stealing a bike from your garage? Does he deserve to die for it? " We go from talking about an armed robber taking someone to a back room (never a good sign) to a teenage burglar. Poor teenage burglar dying over a bike. Of course if the teenage burglar didn't put himself in a position that made him a target he might not have to worry. The criminal is making the decision that potentially leads to his demise.

    ReplyDelete
  42. If my kid robbed someone and was killed for it, especially if it were an armed robbery of this sort, I'd be sad that they died, but I wouldn't blame the victim for defending themselves. If anything I would blame myself for failing to raise a good person who doesn't steal other people's things.

    Everyone is someone's child, but they're responsible for their own actions and the consequences of such. I'm not going to wish that my kid lives so they can get away with victimizing someone else, whether they truly posed a threat to that person or not.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I don't think it's clear that the robber was threatening the life of the employee.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Well Pyrotek- I just can't believe you wrote that. I couldn't disagree more.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Police cleared an Indianapolis grocery store manager of wrongdoing after he shot and killed a man trying to rob the Kroger store where he works, but he may not escape punishment from his employer.

    From here http://www.wsbt.com/wsbt-kroger-store-manager-called-a-hero-but-not-in-the-all-clear-just-yet-20111228,0,7596581.story

    ReplyDelete
  46. japete writes:

    "I don't think it's clear that the robber was threatening the life of the employee. "

    Indiana law presumes that an individual committing a forcible felony is threatening the life of another - and therefore deadly force is permissible.

    This is almost exactly the same approach that Minnesota law takes as well.
    B

    ReplyDelete
  47. "I don't think it's clear that the robber was threatening the life of the employee."

    The robber had a gun pressed against the back of one of the store employees. How much more clear could it get?

    ReplyDelete
  48. I'm not aware that Minnesota has a law that allows guns in the workplace. Here is Minnesota law currently - " “No duty to retreat before using deadly force to prevent a felony in one’s place of abode; no duty to retreat before using deadly force in self defense in one’s place of abode.” This isn’t as clear as it appears, however. There are four cases in Minnesota where duty of retreat was upheld and a Castle Doctrine bill failed to pass during the last legislative vote." So far, Castle Doctrine law in Minnesota applies to one's abode.

    ReplyDelete
  49. The robber with the "gun", may or may not have used said "gun" to use deadly force. The latest article I have found, in spite of one sent to me by a commenter, above, is this one http://www.indystar.com/article/20111229/LOCAL1804/112290344/Police-say-little-about-shooting-inside-Kroger?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Ctext%7CIndyStar.com

    " Kroger employee Elijah Elliott, 24, shot and killed Jeremy Atkinson, 26, after Atkinson pressed a "hard object" against an employee's back during an apparent robbery, police say.

    The police have said they do not anticipate arrests but remained mum on what happened Monday evening at the Kroger store on West 71st Street."

    " For example, police have not disclosed whether Atkinson was armed, or what the "hard object" was, or how long he was there before being shot -- citing their investigation."

    More information apparently coming next week, will let us all know what the scenario was at the crime scene.

    ReplyDelete
  50. "i'm not aware Minnesota has a law that allows guns in the workplace".

    The law is silent on this issue except to note that an employer may lawfully prohibit under their policies the possession of a firearm on their premises. However, they may not prohibit possession in a Parking lot or ramp. In other words, it's legal to carry at work unless your employer prohibits it

    Are you trying to say that it's not legal to carry a firearm at a workplace in Minnesota?

    ReplyDelete
  51. Bryan- I'm trying to get straight what you are saying the law says. I'm aware of the parking lot provision of the law. I am also aware that employers may prohibit employees from carrying guns in the work place which I think most do, actually. Are you trying to say it's legal for people to carry guns in the work place in Minnesota?

    ReplyDelete
  52. The statute in MN reads quite differently than what you are quoting above. What statutes are you referencing?

    Deadly force may be used in MN when fear of death or great bodily harm is present. MN 609.065 is the relevant statute.

    Reasonable force, up to and including deadly force, may be used in a number of circumstances as defined in MN 609.06

    Either would apply in this case if it had happened in MN. There are also a number of court cases applicable here as well.

    Castle Doctrine has nothing to do with it.

    ReplyDelete
  53. It's perfectly legal to carry a firearm in your workplace unless your workplace is a prohibited place (jail, etc).

    If your employer has prohibited carry by policy then you're still legal to carry there but you could face action under your employers policy.

    You would need a permit to carry to carry at work - however your employer can authorize you to carry on their grounds without a permit.

    ReplyDelete
  54. What I don't get, Bryan, is why people want to carry in their places of work. Yes, I understand that sometimes bad people come in to work places. But the need to carry at work is just not on the minds of most people when they get dressed in the morning. It is the 2-3% of you who try to change the culture for the rest of us. It's like the quotes from the articles about the Kroger shooting- people who aren't trained and don't keep up their skills shouldn't be shooting in a work place. As we all know, accuracy is a problem and panic is another problem. I just don't see it, Bryan. But some of you insist that you would and could carry in spite of the desires of employers or CEOs of companies. What is that all about?

    ReplyDelete
  55. "What I don't get, Bryan, is why people want to carry in their places of work"

    So we're in agreement that it's legal to do so?

    As to the motivations why - there are plenty of crimes and dangers that people encounter at work. Some folks choose to carry because of that reason, some don't. It's an individual choice - one protected by law in most states.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "The robber with the "gun", may or may not have used said "gun" to use deadly force."

    Again, it doesn't matter if the gun was real. The robber's actions forced the manager to assume the "hard object" was a gun. If some robber pressed a hard object against your back claimed it was a gun, wouldn't you take their word for it?

    "What I don't get, Bryan, is why people want to carry in their places of work."

    Doesn't this case make it obvious? It's the perfect example of why. Even if the manager is fired for violating company policy, he and the other employees who were present during the robbery will still be alive and unharmed. That's a worthy trade-off.

    ReplyDelete
  57. There is absolutely no way to prove that the robber would have done harm to the clerk.

    ReplyDelete
  58. japete writes:
    "There is absolutely no way to prove that the robber would have done harm to the clerk. "

    Legally, in Indiana, this is not at all relevant to the situation. The robber was committing a forcible felony - and that's all that is required under Indiana law.

    ReplyDelete
  59. You still don't get it, do you? Proof isn't needed. The only way to prove such a thing is to allow the robber to hurt someone, which completely defeats the purpose of self defense in the first place.

    What can be proven is that the victims in this case faced the immediate threat of death or serious physical injury. Those are conditions in which dead force is justified.

    This is the real world, not "Minority Report". In the real world, there is no way to prove what someone is going to do until they do it, at least not without a Department of Pre-Crime like in that movie.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Oh I get it all right. I believe that there should be a pretty darned good case to take a life in anything called "justifiable homicide". The Shoot First or Stand Your Ground laws are bad news. In some cases, people who do not intend harm could be shot and there is no mandate to retreat- all that is needed is to say you were reasonably sure the person intended bodily harm and you get off with no charges. These are bad laws. But we will not agree on this. So relax and enjoy your New Year's Eve all.

    ReplyDelete
  61. "I believe that there should be a pretty darned good case to take a life in anything called "justifiable homicide"

    That's what happened here. A better case would be hard to come by.

    "all that is needed is to say you were reasonably sure the person intended bodily harm and you get off with no charges."

    That's not how it works. You can't just say it. It has to actually be so, as it clearly was in this case. If the authorities don't believe you, they can still file charges. But in this case the authorities did believe the victim, so why are we even talking about such non-related laws anyway?

    There should be no mandate to retreat so long as the victim had a right to be where he is and be doing what he was doing. No one should be required to outrun bullets or a deadly weapon, especially when the criminal is much stronger and more fit then the victim, which is usually the case (criminals go after the weak)

    The law should be on the side of the victim, not the criminal, and thankfully in most cases it is. But I can see it wouldn't be if you had your way.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Oh but it is how it works- excerpts from a previous blog (http://www.commongunsense.com/2011/03/castle-doctrine-or-shoot-first-ask.html) about this very thing- " First of all it's hard to prove a negative - prove that something didn't exist. Secondly particularly if the other party is dead it's hard to attack a set of facts given by the defendant. All you really have to go on is trying to prove that the belief of fear was unreasonable. If shoot first passes it creates the presumption that the fear was reasonable and thus requires the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't. Secondly current law requires that there be an actual and honest belief of the fear, whereas the presumption removes that completely. So - you're afraid- shoot vs. I think I'm afraid and here's why and you agree that the fear was real and reasonable.""

    And--" The revision would give citizens more legal leeway to shoot or kill anyone they perceive as a threat. On the street or any other public place, there would no longer be an obligation to try to avoid trouble before using a gun in self defense. And the proposal would lower the standard for firing from fear of "great'' harm to fear of "substantial'' harm." Lowering standards of proof in cases of killing another human being seems to me to be a bad idea. What if it turned the other way and was used to get someone off "scott free" who shot a loved one or a good friend of yours?"

    And further- ( from Wikipedia entry about Castle Doctrine laws- " The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death upon an occupant of the home
    The occupant(s) of the home must reasonably believe that the intruder intends to commit some other felony, such as arson or burglary"
    Arkansas law- " if the person reasonably believes that the other person is: (1) Committing or about to commit a felony involving force or violence; (2) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force; or (3) (A) Imminently endangering the person's life or imminently about to victimize the person as described in § 9-15-103 from the continuation of a pattern of domestic abuse. (B) As used in this section, “domestic abuse” means the same as defined in § 9-15-103."
    Delaware- " Except as otherwise provided in subsections (d) and (e) of this section, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as the person believes them to be when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which the person has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action."
    etc., etc.

    What do you think "reasonably believes" means? Is that proof positive? Anyone could use that as a defense and possibly get away with murder. That is a concern. It has happened. I am not saying that is the case in the Kroger shooting since we don't have all the details yet. Plus the man was a robber and a felon who deserved to go to prison for his actions.

    More will come out about the case, as I have said before, and then we can see what happened at the Kroger's store. In the meantime, I'm done guessing at what happened or what could have happened. Have a nice New Year's "staplegunkid"- whatever the heck that means.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Hopefully this man won't get away with murder- http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2011/12/flushing_teen_who_died_while_p.html

    Shouldn't someone wait to see what they are shooting at before firing? Or is this "shoot first"?

    ReplyDelete
  64. japete writes: "Hopefully this man won't get away with murder"

    There's nothing about this shooting that's justified legally - not even under the "shoot first" bill that you fought against in the MN legislature.

    That said, murder isn't the appropriate criminal charge in this matter.
    B

    ReplyDelete
  65. japete writes: "What do you think "reasonably believes" means? Is that proof positive? Anyone could use that as a defense and possibly get away with murder."

    No, it's nowhere as easy to use as you are making it out to be. Reasonable belief means something quite specific in the criminal law. There is significant case law at the state and federal levels around the "reasonable man test".

    The Kroger situation has been ruled by the police as a justifiable use of deadly force. While all of the facts aren't out - it's a clean shoot.

    Happy New Year.

    PS I'm still waiting for your explanation as to why an individual can't carry at work in Minnesota.

    ReplyDelete
  66. http://advanceindiana.blogspot.com/2011/12/kroger-shooting-raising-number-of.html

    Has it been determined for sure that the Kroger clerk's actions were justifiable? I can't find a recent article that states this for sure.
    " Indianapolis police have said no charges are expected in Monday night's shooting by the 24-year-old manager at the store on the city's northwest side. The manager shot 26-year-old Jeremy Atkinson of Indianapolis after he forced an employee to the store's office, but police haven't said whether Atkinson had a gun. "

    I am not alone in my views, by the way, for those of you who continually attack my views- they are expressed by many others who happen to agree- http://sheilakennedy.net/2011/12/you-could-see-this-one-coming/

    ReplyDelete
  67. "I'm not aware that Minnesota has a law that allows guns in the workplace."

    That's not how the law works. Here in America, that which is not specifically prohibited is allowed. It is legal in MN to carry a gun in the workplace unless there is a law specifically prohibiting it.

    Can you point to the law that prohibits it? If not, then it is legal.

    ReplyDelete
  68. So then, Bryan- you are willing to carry at work in spite of your employer's specific rules against it? Where do you work? Does your place of work have signs banning guns from the premises? Does your employer have work place safety regulations? I wonder.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Japete, The fact that you've have managed to find someone else who shares your extreme anti-self defense views tells us nothing. It doesn't change the fact that the shooting in this case was fully justified. The manager has already been cleared by police

    http://www.wsbt.com/wsbt-kroger-store-manager-called-a-hero-but-not-in-the-all-clear-just-yet-20111228,0,7596581.story

    This was already posted in another comment. I hope you don't miss this one.

    It's also telling that in both your blog post and the link to the other one you posted, the comments in support of the manager outnumber the ones who are opposed. Even the vast majority people who read the posts of anti-gun bloggers know the manager was in the right, regardless of what his company policy might say.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Comments usually come from the pro gun side. That is because you guys seem to lurk on any article to do with guns and troll through blogs.Most folks don't do that. I don't take anything from that.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Your premise is that before a person uses deadly force to defend their lives, they should know beyond a reasonable doubt whether the attacker intends to kill. That is silly. The case is clear that the robber was committing a felony and used an object to force compliance . Whether the robber intended to kill or really had a gun is irrelevant.

    Too many innocent people will die using your premise. That is not a cost I want to occur

    ReplyDelete
  72. Too many innocent people are dying every day because of our American gun culture and loose gun laws. That is a fact. The robber was not an innocent person. I am questioning whether it was necessary to kill him in this case. As I have said before, we will find out more when more information is released.

    ReplyDelete
  73. It was necessary to stop him. He was shot to be stopped. It was necessary to shoot him. He died of his wounds.

    ReplyDelete