AP Enterprise: Deaths loom over self-defense laws

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20081205/D94SHJS00.html

AP Enterprise: Deaths loom over self-defense laws

Dec 5, 7:05 AM (ET)

By SHELIA BYRD

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) - A convenience store clerk chased down a man and shot him dead over a case of beer this summer and was charged with murder. A week later, a clerk at another Jackson convenience store followed and fatally shot a man he said tried to rob him, and authorities let him go without charges.

Police say the robber in the second case was armed, while the man accused of stealing beer was not.

Just the same, the legal plights of the two clerks highlight the uncertain impact of National Rifle Association-backed laws sweeping the nation that make it easier to justify shooting in self-defense.

In 2006, Mississippi adopted its version of the so-called castle doctrine, which lifts requirements that individuals first try to flee before using deadly force to counter a threat in their homes, vehicles or, in Mississippi’s case, at work.

Gun rights advocates who have helped pass the law in 23 states since 2003 say it removes an unfair legal penalty for people exercising a constitutional right in a life-or-death emergency, though some police and prosecutors are skeptical of self-defense claims under the law.

An Associated Press review found a growing number of cases but no clear trend yet in how the law is applied or how cases will be resolved in court.

All a defendant has to do is establish a threat, and usually the other witness is dead. That shifts the burden to prosecutors and police investigators, who have to gather evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that deadly force wasn’t justified, according to a report released this summer by the National District Attorneys Association.

“It’s very difficult to prove a negative,” said Steven Jansen, president of the NDAA. “It might be a little too early to get the overall effect through the court process because we’re just seeing the cases enter the court and finding out how the judges are going to rule.”

Sarbrinder Pannu, the first clerk, alleged that James Hawthorne grabbed beer from a cooler and left without paying for it. Police Lt. Jeffery Scott said Pannu followed Hawthorne outside the store and shot him twice.

Surinder Singh, president of the Jackson Indian Storeowners Association and a spokesman for Pannu, said Mississippi’s law gives you the right to protect your property.

“For them, it’s a case of beer. For us, it’s our property,” Singh said. “That person didn’t have respect for his life. He put his life against one case of beer.”

Police and prosecutors disagreed and charged Pannu with murder and shooting into an occupied vehicle. Pannu has not entered a plea and has declined to be interviewed.

About a week after Hawthorne was killed, a clerk at another Jackson convenience store chased and fatally shot a clown mask-wearing robber outside the store after he stole cash from the register. The clerk wasn’t charged.

Police didn’t release the clerk’s name because he wasn’t charged. As with Hawthorne’s shooting, the case will be presented to a grand jury, though police said the second clerk was justified because he felt a clear and present danger.

“The first thing about it is that you want to fairly apply the law,” said Scott, who helped investigate both shootings and pointed out that the second robber was armed. “The problem is that there’s an exception to every rule.”

Castle doctrine laws drew national attention when Joe Horn of Pasadena, Texas, shot and killed two men in November 2007 after he saw them crawling out of the windows of a neighbor’s house, carrying bags of the neighbor’s possessions. Horn claimed the shooting was justified by Texas’ law, and a grand jury declined to indict him.

Cases this year have included a man in San Antonio who shot and killed an intruder who climbed through his bedroom window and a Lexington, Ky., man who shot through his house’s front door, killing a man who had been beating on it. No charges were filed in either case.

A woman in Missouri, which enacted its castle doctrine last year, could still face charges for shooting her former boyfriend after he came through the window of her home. A coroner’s jury in Adair County ruled that Jackie Gleason committed a felony when she killed Rogelio Johnson in May. Prosecutors said the jury might not have understood the law and have asked the state attorney general to review whether to file formal charges.

The law’s rapid rollout across nearly half the nation is largely the result of lobbying by the NRA. Most of the state laws, including Mississippi’s, are patterned after Florida’s.

Michael Edmondson, who works in the state attorney’s office in Palm Beach County, said castle-doctrine claims have increased since the law took effect three years ago.

“You would rarely see a case prior to the change of the statute here in Florida,” Edmondson said. “I can recollect a half dozen cases in the last year or so. Some successful. Some not.”

Andrew Arulanandam, director of public affairs for the NRA, dismissed concerns about the law being misused or misinterpreted, saying all cases are reviewed by law enforcement authorities.

The laws have become popular in a country that’s grown increasingly anxious, said Mat Heck, prosecuting attorney for Montgomery County in Ohio, where a castle doctrine law went into effect in September.

“There really is a change in perception of public safety after 9/11,” Heck said. “Citizens are just anxious. They fear attacks, not only from the terrorists abroad, but from residents here in our own country.”

A lack of confidence in the justice system and the perception that defendants’ rights overshadow victims’ are other reasons cited in the NDAA report.

Heck said his state’s law pertains to a person’s home and car, and is only applied when someone has unlawfully entered.

“We tried to make it somewhat restrictive so it wasn’t like the old wild, wild West,” Heck said.

Pannu is free on $50,000 bond and has returned to work at the store, where jugs of candy clutter the cashier’s counter and pictures of Pannu standing with $1,000 winners of scratch-off games are posted on the bulletproof barrier that separated him from Hawthorne on Aug. 17.

“The real debate is ‘Can you kill a man for shoplifting?’” said Dennis Sweet, a Jackson attorney representing Hawthorne’s family in a lawsuit against Pannu and A&H Food Mart.

“The guy was in his truck leaving,” Sweet said. “He posed no danger.”

There is your answer!

Buckaroo

I highly recommend training with someone like John Farnam for his insight into the legalities of what is and what is not a good shoot. While I do not agree with everything he teaches about gun handling nor some of his theories on shot placement, his lectures on mindset, awareness, threat avoidance and what to do after a shoot are worth the price of the course.

Guys I work with (who know me reasonably well and know that I shoot a lot) always make mistaken assumptions about how I might react to a situation. When a news story pops up in which some moron shoots someone because they were standing in their yard, they are surprised (over and over again) when I say that it was a bad shoot.

One of the great things about professional training is learning when not to shoot someone.

The Katar,

I recently did my AZ CCW and the instructor is a judge Pro Tem, Attorney and reserve deputy (or officer) and he presented the class from a lawyers point of view. It was very enlightening to say the least and was much different from the courses I had attended prviously taught by LEO’s.

Does anyone actually have a problem, morally, with a thief being shot, under ANY circumstances?

I don’t.

If more theives got shot while plying their trade, there would soon be less thieves in the world.

Deadly force is a last resort and should not be used to avenge the loss of property. It should only be used to stop grave physical harm to you or someone else. If someone is breaking into my truck parked in the driveway, I’m not going to lean out the bedroom window and shoot them. The inconvienence of dealing with my insurance company is far better than a jury trial.

Neither of the shoots listed in the OP are really justified in my not-legally-trained opinion. In neither case did the slain perpetrator present ability, intent, or opportunity to commit harm. Even the case of the armed man fleeing the scene who was chased down and killed does not pass that simple test. He had opportunity (he was there) and ability (he was armed), but he did not show intent (he was running away). Now, if the armed robber is standing in front of the clerk and says “Give me the money, or I’ll shoot you,” it’s game on. But once the perpetrator is running away, he/she is no longer an immediate threat.

While I won’t shed a tear over a thief getting plugged, I’d greatly prefer it’s done within the bounds of the law. Bad and questionable shoots put a black stain on all of us, and help feed the media and political machine that wants to disarm all of us.

All a defendant has to do is establish a threat, and usually the other witness is dead. That shifts the burden to prosecutors and police investigators, who have to gather evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that deadly force wasn’t justified, according to a report released this summer by the National District Attorneys Association.

To me, this is the way it should be. It is innocent until proven guilty, right? If I’ve defended myself and police arrive to find me and a dead perp that is armed with a gun or knife then the burden should shift to the police/DA to prove I was wrong, right? If I am left standing with a gun and an unarmed man is down then I had better be beaten badly to justify a shoot, in most cases. If I am unharmed and the downed man is unarmed then I would expect to be in deep $hit. I mean this libral, media bias toward anyone with a gun and especially one that uses a gun is a crimnal is total BS.

Laws on self defense were well taught in my CCW class, that was more than 15 years ago. We want soon to get my wife into a CCW class and I intend to attend as well just to refresh on the current laws.

To me these laws should be applied with common sense, do my thoughts on this matters make sense? What are your opinions?

I agree with pretty much everything you said, I think the only thing that may be missing here is how the law, in what ever area this happens, applies to the protection of property. If the armed man is running away then the threat to life has ended. If the armed man turns and shoots the chasing clerk then he may (and it has happened before) be able to claim self defense. Although I have a problem with a criminal using these loop holes. Man it is easy to get into some gray areas here.

I hope I’m not in that category.:wink:

So if the man is running away with your food, or your only means of self-defense, or stealing your car/bike and thus leaving you stranded, or your life savings, and you think its OK to just waive him goodbye? The libs are intentionally selecting the most egregious cases to make a broader point (get rid of self defense laws, and ultimately get rid of guns) and you just fell for it hook, line and sinker. It’s no wonder America is going down the crapper when we have cry babies who don’t mind stealing too much, nor lying, nor adultry/fornication, nor any one of a hundred other sins that in times past were routinely condemned.

BTW, in TX its always been perfectly legal to shoot someone who’s stealing your property.

Don’t try to take my comments to their most rediculous extrapolations. Can you name a single instance of when someone was robbed of a car or bike or loaf of bread and then died as a result? A single one?

I didn’t fall for jack. I know full well why these cases were held up as examples, and why tens of thousands of lawful uses of firearms were not mentioned. But the two shootings mentioned were questionable, and if we don’t try to teach discipline in our community to only shoot when necessary, these kinds of questionable shoots are going to erode our rights. It’s that simple.

And I don’t think stealing is ok, not by a long shot. I’ve had things stolen out of my truck, and had my house broken into while I was inside. But I’m also able to realize that shooting someone who pisses me off or takes a minor amount of property from me is going to cause me way more headaches than if I just called it into the insurance company. I might keep my TV from getting stolen, but I’ll have to sell it to help pay for a lawyer.

If you want to shoot a teenager in the back for prying the stereo out of your car, go ahead. We’ll see how lenient those laws in TX really are.

Actually, a few years ago a man in Garland, TX shot 3 men in the back as they were fleeing his house with his TV and stereo equipment. He didn’t even bother to get out of his truck or yell “stop”. Per TX law, his case was brought to the grand jury and they refused to indict him after less than 5 minutes of deliberation. This is not an isolated case. Folks in many parts of the country don’t take kindly to stealing, and their peers feel the same way and won’t put them in jail even if they shoot a thief in the back.

If you happen to live in the NE or Left Coast, I understand your attitude. I think its stupid, and don’t agree with it, but I understand it. It is the exact same attitude that got us into the current economic depression–a few “educated” thieves have brought down the whole country. Just a little theivery, no problem, right? Wrong.

I can only speak for myself and will not judge others morally if they are ever involved in such a horrible situation. I personally would never shoot another unarmed human being for taking my stuff or that of others. I don’t want the aftermath, both legal and personal to deal with. I can always buy more stuff. I have great insurance and have been extremely blessed in regards to finances in my 52 years on this earth.

Now having said that, I realize that so many other people are not as blessed and many will never get back or be able to replace something that has been stolen from them.

I also want to add that if I ever encounter a BG in my home or on our acreage( a mini ranch/farm/camp/whatever in the middle of nowhere in southern Highlands county FL) they had better turn and run immediately in the opposite direction from me and mine. I have no qualms about ending a threat to my life or that or other innocents and have mentally prepared and trained to do so, if that situation ever arises I will act accordingly.

P.S. As someone already stated, if thieves knew they could be legally shot for plying their misdeeds I bet it would cut down on such activities real quick

You got a link to that story? It’s not passing the smell test.

I can live with my ‘stupid’ attitude disappointing you. It’s not that I think thieves should get away with petty crime, it’s that I don’t think shooting an unarmed man in the back is the right solution. I don’t mind if a thief gets plugged, but I’m not going to take my chances with a legal system that is, at best, mildly hostile to armed citizens. If you truly believe that TX has a no-bag limit, open season on unarmed petty criminals and vandals, hey, good luck with that.

Though I would definitely agree with defending my property circumstances matter. If someone breaks into my home “just to steal my 52” plasma" as far as I know they are there to do me harm and I will articulate that I was in fear of my life. If they are running out of the house I would probably give chase but I would not shot them in the back. Sometimes we really need to apply just a little common sense. OTOH if more of these douches were put down on the spot the others may reconsider their actions.

Jackson Indian Storeowners Association

H0ly cr@p! Can you imagine the out rage of the Simpsons had Apu as the head of the “Jackson Indian Storeowners Association”! Maybe Joe Biden was right!

Although these cases are extreme examples, and “bad shoots” in my opinion, the basic premise of the article, and others like it, is flawed.

I’ve seen several of these articles decrying the fact that more people (perps) will die as a result of castle doctrine, and that the increase in deaths is inherently wrong.

Well, it makes sense that if you allow people to use deadly force to defend themselves instead of running away, there are going to be more perps getting shot. Simple logic, isn’t it? Just like if you allow legal concealed carry, those guns are going to be used occasionally in self-defense, resulting in injury or death to the perp. Perps aren’t going to stop committing crimes as soon as the law is passed, but if enough get shot while committing crimes, you may get a deterrent effect and crime rates might go down.

Most of these articles are written from the point of view that any death of a perp that wouldn’t have been sentenced to death for his or her crime is wrong, and that no citizen should be able to unilaterally sentence a perp for any “punishment” that isn’t equal to the crime.

The laws are pretty clear, you can only use deadly force if you have a reasonable belief that your life is in danger. Because we don’t know the state of mind of a someone breaking into our house or car while we are occupying it, we have the legal right to assume they mean us harm and can use deadly force. But once the guy is running away and no longer a threat, we are no longer in danger.

Despite the implication of the author, the law is not the problem. The problem is that a couple people misinterpreted the law and went beyond what it clearly allows. That doesn’t make the law bad, it just means people need to be better educated on what the law actually means.

I dont totally disagree, but at the same time I dont want to be the guy who shot a 13 year old kid in the head because I caught him breaking into my car to steal my IPOD.

If someone is in my home that’s a different story. All bets are off and I will what I need to and ensure my wife and baby are not at risk.

Its a case by case thing as it should be. I am not blood thirsty, but I wont hesitate to defend myself either.

Here is one that happened this morning in the DFW area.

http://www.myfoxdfw.com/myfox/pages/Home/Detail?contentId=8014171&version=2&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=VSTY&pageId=1.1.1

None of those stories matched the one presented earlier of a man shooting three men in the back as they fled his yard with a TV. And some of the cases that are linked there will be presented to a grand jury, which could indict.

TX is more lenient at the DA level and the grand jury level than most states. However, a questionable shoot could still go to grand jury and an indictment could result. Is a TV or car stereo worth that kind of trouble? Especially one that would be replaced in a month or so? Yeah, you could be right in shooting a dirtbag as he runs out of your yard or is trying to get in your truck, but is your righteousness worth all the headache of a grand jury and possible trial? Even if no indictment is handed down, what about a wrongful death civil suit? I’m not saying I agree with that kind of lawyer mentality, but to think that it doesn’t exist is inviting trouble.

If someone is in your home or trying to get in your home, and you think your life is threatened, go ahead and shoot. I’m not arguing that. But shooting someone running away from you on principle is risky and could be disastrous.