You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Is this self-defense? Vote "yes" or "no" and give reasons
- Thread starter bestdefense357
- Start date
bestdefense357
New member
I'll go first. Yes, it should be ruled self-defense. While I admit the case is blurry in a couple areas (assailant shot in the back, and had no weapon), the fact is he attacked the storeowner and his wife. With that attack, he became more than a "shoplifter", he became an aggressor, and the shop owner was justified in shooting him.
That's my opinion, but certainly there's room for argument.
Robert
That's my opinion, but certainly there's room for argument.
Robert
Jeff Thomas
New member
The story:
Shopkeeper charged in shooting
Homeless man's death was accident, he says
04/13/2000
By Connie Piloto / The Dallas Morning News
> An Old East Dallas man was charged with murder Wednesday in the shooting of a homeless man he said was stealing canned goods from his neighborhood grocery.
Manuel Lara Vides, 35, had shot Leroy Anthony Milan, 38, the day before at Chupacabra, a small grocery in the 4800 block of Ross Avenue. Mr. Vides was jailed Wednesday at Lew Sterrett Justice Center in lieu of $50,000 bail.
In a telephone interview from his cell, Mr. Vides said Mr. Milan attacked him and his wife after they confronted him for shoplifting.
"I didn't mean to kill him," said Mr. Vides, who has no previous criminal record. "I wanted to scare him away because he was hitting us, and the gun just went off."
Police said Mr. Vides' actions were "not a clear-cut case of self-defense."
"It's more appropriately handled through the criminal justice system," homicide Sgt. Gary Kirkpatrick said.
Mr. Milan's family could not be reached for comment. Several years ago, he was issued an identification card by the Stewpot, a downtown homeless center. Court records show he listed himself as homeless in 1997.
Records indicate he had several arrests for theft and drug possession and served time in Dallas County jail.
Mr. Milan entered the store about 4:30 p.m. Tuesday. Mr. Vides' wife, Mirna Lemus , said the store, which also sells ice cream and tortas, was bustling with shoppers.
Ms. Lemus said she was behind a counter when she saw Mr. Milan placing groceries into a black plastic bag. The items included coffee and other canned goods, police said. Mr. Vides said he approached Mr. Milan and asked whether he needed help with anything.
Mr. Vides said Mr. Milan then ordered a pistachio ice cream cone. The shop owner told the man the cone would cost $1.18, but Mr. Milan argued that the price should be $1.09, Mr. Vides said.
Mr. Vides said he gave Mr. Milan his money back and told him to leave the goods in his bag at the store before leaving.
"That's when he got angry and hit me," Mr. Vides said. "He pushed me and pulled my shirt over my face, and I fell to the ground. He also hit my wife."
As the men struggled on the floor in front of the counter, Mr. Vides told his wife to get his gun.
Police said Ms. Lemus handed her husband the handgun as he struggled with Mr. Milan. Mr. Vides said the gun fired accidentally during the struggle.
The victim, shot in the back, was found in the store near the front door, police said.
Mr. Milan "didn't have a weapon, so we cannot clearly establish that the homicide was justifiable," Sgt. Kirkpatrick said.
The shooting was the second in four months that left a homeless man dead and an Old East Dallas homeowner or shop owner facing a murder charge.
A Dallas County grand jury indicted Robert W. Sanchez in the shooting of a homeless man who was rummaging through trash outside his home before dawn in November 1999.
Mr. Sanchez, who awaits trial, told police he was protecting his home and family when he opened his second-floor bedroom window and fired several shotgun blasts at a man later identified as William McKinley Long.
Mr. Long was trying to haul off a refrigerator that had been placed outside Mr. Sanchez's fence for trash collectors.
"There has always been a push to move the homeless into one section of town, but they are everywhere," said the Rev. Bubba Dailey, who runs the Austin Street Centre. "You can't push them out of sight. We're going to have to learn to live with one another."
Mr. Vides, a Salvadoran native, also owns a T-shirt printing shop in Dallas.
"He is one of the most entrepreneurial immigrants I have ever known," said Paul B. Kerr, director of the Center for Human Rights, a Dallas immigrant-rights group. "He is a real nice guy with a community spirit."
Mr. Vides said the shooting wasn't his first trouble at Chupacabra. A thief once stole $15,000 worth of watches he was selling and broke his car window, he said.
"All I do is work and try to make a living," he said. "I have never been in trouble with the law. I was trying to protect my wife and other employees from a thief, and I'm the one who is in jail."
Shopkeeper charged in shooting
Homeless man's death was accident, he says
04/13/2000
By Connie Piloto / The Dallas Morning News
> An Old East Dallas man was charged with murder Wednesday in the shooting of a homeless man he said was stealing canned goods from his neighborhood grocery.
Manuel Lara Vides, 35, had shot Leroy Anthony Milan, 38, the day before at Chupacabra, a small grocery in the 4800 block of Ross Avenue. Mr. Vides was jailed Wednesday at Lew Sterrett Justice Center in lieu of $50,000 bail.
In a telephone interview from his cell, Mr. Vides said Mr. Milan attacked him and his wife after they confronted him for shoplifting.
"I didn't mean to kill him," said Mr. Vides, who has no previous criminal record. "I wanted to scare him away because he was hitting us, and the gun just went off."
Police said Mr. Vides' actions were "not a clear-cut case of self-defense."
"It's more appropriately handled through the criminal justice system," homicide Sgt. Gary Kirkpatrick said.
Mr. Milan's family could not be reached for comment. Several years ago, he was issued an identification card by the Stewpot, a downtown homeless center. Court records show he listed himself as homeless in 1997.
Records indicate he had several arrests for theft and drug possession and served time in Dallas County jail.
Mr. Milan entered the store about 4:30 p.m. Tuesday. Mr. Vides' wife, Mirna Lemus , said the store, which also sells ice cream and tortas, was bustling with shoppers.
Ms. Lemus said she was behind a counter when she saw Mr. Milan placing groceries into a black plastic bag. The items included coffee and other canned goods, police said. Mr. Vides said he approached Mr. Milan and asked whether he needed help with anything.
Mr. Vides said Mr. Milan then ordered a pistachio ice cream cone. The shop owner told the man the cone would cost $1.18, but Mr. Milan argued that the price should be $1.09, Mr. Vides said.
Mr. Vides said he gave Mr. Milan his money back and told him to leave the goods in his bag at the store before leaving.
"That's when he got angry and hit me," Mr. Vides said. "He pushed me and pulled my shirt over my face, and I fell to the ground. He also hit my wife."
As the men struggled on the floor in front of the counter, Mr. Vides told his wife to get his gun.
Police said Ms. Lemus handed her husband the handgun as he struggled with Mr. Milan. Mr. Vides said the gun fired accidentally during the struggle.
The victim, shot in the back, was found in the store near the front door, police said.
Mr. Milan "didn't have a weapon, so we cannot clearly establish that the homicide was justifiable," Sgt. Kirkpatrick said.
The shooting was the second in four months that left a homeless man dead and an Old East Dallas homeowner or shop owner facing a murder charge.
A Dallas County grand jury indicted Robert W. Sanchez in the shooting of a homeless man who was rummaging through trash outside his home before dawn in November 1999.
Mr. Sanchez, who awaits trial, told police he was protecting his home and family when he opened his second-floor bedroom window and fired several shotgun blasts at a man later identified as William McKinley Long.
Mr. Long was trying to haul off a refrigerator that had been placed outside Mr. Sanchez's fence for trash collectors.
"There has always been a push to move the homeless into one section of town, but they are everywhere," said the Rev. Bubba Dailey, who runs the Austin Street Centre. "You can't push them out of sight. We're going to have to learn to live with one another."
Mr. Vides, a Salvadoran native, also owns a T-shirt printing shop in Dallas.
"He is one of the most entrepreneurial immigrants I have ever known," said Paul B. Kerr, director of the Center for Human Rights, a Dallas immigrant-rights group. "He is a real nice guy with a community spirit."
Mr. Vides said the shooting wasn't his first trouble at Chupacabra. A thief once stole $15,000 worth of watches he was selling and broke his car window, he said.
"All I do is work and try to make a living," he said. "I have never been in trouble with the law. I was trying to protect my wife and other employees from a thief, and I'm the one who is in jail."
Jeff Thomas
New member
I'm with Coinneach on this one. Lots of info we don't have, like how big is Vides vs. Milan - what kind of disparity in force do we have here?
Vides made a number of serious errors. The store was 'bustling with shoppers', and yet when he is rolling around on the floor in a scuffle, he has his wife hand a gun to him! Retention would be a serious issue, as well as introducing gunfire into a crowded store under very uncontrolled conditions. Without the display (and use) of a weapon by Milan, I think this was a serious mistake. [Of course, I'm sitting on my chair in front of a computer, and this is always easier than being in the fray.]
Also, Vides should have at least kept his mouth shut until he spoke with an attorney. His statements are troubling. All of us know that guns don't just 'go off'. Vides pulled the trigger, whether he remembers it or not ... or, alternatively, it was pulled in the struggle. Whichever it is, he needs a good attorney.
This is an example where training would have helped. I strongly support the idea that people should be able to defend themselves, and certainly shop owners have such an obligation. But, they would be wise to seek training. I doubt Vides would have made all of these poor choices if he had received some education in this area.
TFL not only introduced me to these concepts, but also helped me find the training I needed ... I'm much less likely to make these mistakes, thanks to TFL and everyone that makes it happen.
Regards from AZ
Vides made a number of serious errors. The store was 'bustling with shoppers', and yet when he is rolling around on the floor in a scuffle, he has his wife hand a gun to him! Retention would be a serious issue, as well as introducing gunfire into a crowded store under very uncontrolled conditions. Without the display (and use) of a weapon by Milan, I think this was a serious mistake. [Of course, I'm sitting on my chair in front of a computer, and this is always easier than being in the fray.]
Also, Vides should have at least kept his mouth shut until he spoke with an attorney. His statements are troubling. All of us know that guns don't just 'go off'. Vides pulled the trigger, whether he remembers it or not ... or, alternatively, it was pulled in the struggle. Whichever it is, he needs a good attorney.
This is an example where training would have helped. I strongly support the idea that people should be able to defend themselves, and certainly shop owners have such an obligation. But, they would be wise to seek training. I doubt Vides would have made all of these poor choices if he had received some education in this area.
TFL not only introduced me to these concepts, but also helped me find the training I needed ... I'm much less likely to make these mistakes, thanks to TFL and everyone that makes it happen.
Regards from AZ
No clear cut self defense here! How does someone in the middle of a scuffle get "handed" a gun from his wife! This is rediculous! He is obviously lying to cover himself! If anything he should get murder without pre-meditation since he shot him in the back as he was leaving the store! The only way to do this was if the man was trying to leave, thus ending the aggression. He will be lucky if he gets off with manslaughter! The right to defend yourself and your family does not include vengefully killing someone as they are leaving. This type of thing is what damages the reputation of gun owners.
TheBluesMan
Moderator Emeritus
Don’t assume that because the shoplifter (Milan) was found near the door that he was in the process of leaving.
It is questionable that the shopkeeper (Vides) could have been the subject of a physical attack, with his hands and the gun behind the back of Milan. Remember, they were struggling on the floor.
It sounds to me like Vides may have had the upper hand in the physical struggle and had a negligent discharge (ND) while the gun was pointed at the back of Milan. Sounds to me like a clear violation of Rule #2, and probably also Rule #3.
The evidence as presented leads me to determine that Vidas WAS defending himself when struggling on the floor with the attacker. He then committed an error by taking the gun from his wife. His ND ended the attack.
Ruling: Not Self-Defense.
I question why the wife or another store employee didn't use the gun to dissuade the attacker.
------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4 Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
It is questionable that the shopkeeper (Vides) could have been the subject of a physical attack, with his hands and the gun behind the back of Milan. Remember, they were struggling on the floor.
It sounds to me like Vides may have had the upper hand in the physical struggle and had a negligent discharge (ND) while the gun was pointed at the back of Milan. Sounds to me like a clear violation of Rule #2, and probably also Rule #3.
The evidence as presented leads me to determine that Vidas WAS defending himself when struggling on the floor with the attacker. He then committed an error by taking the gun from his wife. His ND ended the attack.
Ruling: Not Self-Defense.
I question why the wife or another store employee didn't use the gun to dissuade the attacker.
------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4 Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
In a way, although the shooting is not clearly self-defense, neither is it clear to me that deadly force was unjustified. So, if the incident is not clear either way, I think the shopowner deserves the benefit of the doubt and the presumption of innocence. The authorities are not giving him either. Yes, he could have handled the situation better. But this is the wisdom of hindsight. The fact that the shoplifter did not, as the police say, have a weapon is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. A weapon is not required to kill someone or inflict serious bodily harm.
Plus, if the shoplifter was striking the man's wife, well, frankly, defending your spouse from harm is IMHO a higher law than what's in the statute books and ought to be respected.
OTOH, what bothers me about the incident is the shooter's claim that the gun went off accidentally (IOW, negligently). This implies that he himself did not believe that deadly force was necessary. In which case, the shot should not have been fired, and he's basically hanged himself. Too bad!
But would I vote to convict the shooter if I were on the jury? Probably not, because on balance and under the circumstances, I think society would suffer far more harm by imprisoning the shopowner than it suffered through the death of the shoplifter.
My $0.02.
[This message has been edited by jimmy (edited April 13, 2000).]
Plus, if the shoplifter was striking the man's wife, well, frankly, defending your spouse from harm is IMHO a higher law than what's in the statute books and ought to be respected.
OTOH, what bothers me about the incident is the shooter's claim that the gun went off accidentally (IOW, negligently). This implies that he himself did not believe that deadly force was necessary. In which case, the shot should not have been fired, and he's basically hanged himself. Too bad!
But would I vote to convict the shooter if I were on the jury? Probably not, because on balance and under the circumstances, I think society would suffer far more harm by imprisoning the shopowner than it suffered through the death of the shoplifter.
My $0.02.
[This message has been edited by jimmy (edited April 13, 2000).]
Those of you who know me, also know that I'd make Torquemada sound like a cuddly social reformer.
However..my verdict: Not Self-defense or a good shoot based on the info given.
Not to say I'm unsympathetic to Mr. Vides, however, he screwed up on this one
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
However..my verdict: Not Self-defense or a good shoot based on the info given.
Not to say I'm unsympathetic to Mr. Vides, however, he screwed up on this one
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
Miss Demeanors
New member
I think he should have contacted an attorney before making that statement. I really don't know what to think.
------------------
Sandys' Homepage
RKBA forums
We are as one as we all are the same fighting for one cause -Metallica
------------------
Sandys' Homepage
RKBA forums
We are as one as we all are the same fighting for one cause -Metallica
VictorLouis
New member
It's too early to tell. There may be a true *disparity of force* situation here. Perhaps the indigent man was younger, or stronger than the storekeeper. Feeling on the losing end of the struggle, the shopkeeper yelled for the wife to get the gun.
He may have very well thought he would be severely injured or killed if he didn't act quickly. He did fire on the man, and then perhaps began to second guess himself. Maybe he does not know that "affirmative" defense is legitimate. Perhaps he thought he should claim it was a ND. We just don't know.
The shot "in the back" doen't bias me one way or the other. A forensic exam may show just how far away the man was. But, you may begin to press the trigger as a BG is still facing you, only to have him turn around before the shot breaks. The impact would then naturally be toward, or near, the back of the body.
Let's all remember here: the media constantly screws up the most elementary facts and principles regarding guns. Referring to a S+W M659(9mm)as "the ofc.'s caliber .659 service weapon". (That was one of my hometown paper's doosies.) Referring to semi-automatics as machine guns is almost a given. Bullets, instead of cartridges, calling a Glock a revolver, you get the picture. Let's not put much stock in any account until we here it straight from the mouth of the police spokesperson.
He may have very well thought he would be severely injured or killed if he didn't act quickly. He did fire on the man, and then perhaps began to second guess himself. Maybe he does not know that "affirmative" defense is legitimate. Perhaps he thought he should claim it was a ND. We just don't know.
The shot "in the back" doen't bias me one way or the other. A forensic exam may show just how far away the man was. But, you may begin to press the trigger as a BG is still facing you, only to have him turn around before the shot breaks. The impact would then naturally be toward, or near, the back of the body.
Let's all remember here: the media constantly screws up the most elementary facts and principles regarding guns. Referring to a S+W M659(9mm)as "the ofc.'s caliber .659 service weapon". (That was one of my hometown paper's doosies.) Referring to semi-automatics as machine guns is almost a given. Bullets, instead of cartridges, calling a Glock a revolver, you get the picture. Let's not put much stock in any account until we here it straight from the mouth of the police spokesperson.
Okay.
This hearkens back to the Deadly Force to protect property thread we were discussing earlier this week.
The details that trouble me are the fact that the wound is in the back of the deceased, and the description of being handed a weapon during a scuffle.
We need to know how far away the deceased was from the weapon when the fatal shot was fired. If there is evidence of a close-range shot, then we can assume the weapon was fired in a self-defense situation. Otherwise, it sounds like a killing over less than twenty dollars of food.
If the store was full of shoppers, then we can assume(given human nature, and the presence of a wrestling match), that there will be witnesses.
Just not enough evidence to reach a good conclusion at this time.
LawDog
This hearkens back to the Deadly Force to protect property thread we were discussing earlier this week.
The details that trouble me are the fact that the wound is in the back of the deceased, and the description of being handed a weapon during a scuffle.
We need to know how far away the deceased was from the weapon when the fatal shot was fired. If there is evidence of a close-range shot, then we can assume the weapon was fired in a self-defense situation. Otherwise, it sounds like a killing over less than twenty dollars of food.
If the store was full of shoppers, then we can assume(given human nature, and the presence of a wrestling match), that there will be witnesses.
Just not enough evidence to reach a good conclusion at this time.
LawDog
Texas law allows citizens to use deadly force to prevent the imminent comission of theft of property and to protect the life and limb of yousefl or a thind party.
By law, it seems to be legally justified.
As mentioned by others he sure did make some mistakes. The biggest one, considering Texas law, is when he said he was "just trying to scare him away".
Even in the event of protecting property with deadly force, more than one attorney I have spoken with said it is beter to use the line "When I tried to stop him from steeling my [insert item here], he came at me! I thought he was going to kill me!"
From a jurors perspective this takes the case away from shooting someone for just a [insert item here] to protecting you life.
Lots of mistakes here.
CMOS
By law, it seems to be legally justified.
As mentioned by others he sure did make some mistakes. The biggest one, considering Texas law, is when he said he was "just trying to scare him away".
Even in the event of protecting property with deadly force, more than one attorney I have spoken with said it is beter to use the line "When I tried to stop him from steeling my [insert item here], he came at me! I thought he was going to kill me!"
From a jurors perspective this takes the case away from shooting someone for just a [insert item here] to protecting you life.
Lots of mistakes here.
CMOS
This is why you get a lawyer before making a statement. By his own admission he accidentally shot the man. That makes it manslaughter or negligent homicide. The fact was that he was justified in using force as he was defending his place of business and his wife from unprovoked assault. When he tried to backpedal and make it sound like an accident he just lost his case. If he had kept his mouth shut until he could get an attorney he migth have been okay.
Answer: could have been "yes", but was actually "no".
Was there immediate risk of grave bodily harm to an innocent? Apparently.
- Ability: the assailant was 35 presumably of average fitness...while the victim was an "old man", presumably slower, weaker and relatively brittle. Lacking further info, presumably there was a distinct disparity of force.
- Opportunity: old man was on the floor with his shirt pulled over his head, getting pummeled. The pounding was under way, not just a possibility.
- Jeaopardy: old man was being beaten, with no apparent non-leathal endpoint coming.
Lacking further info, it could have been a justifiable shooting.
BUT.
"I didn't mean to kill him," said Mr. Vides, who has no previous criminal record. "I wanted to scare him away because he was hitting us, and the gun just went off."
Violations of Rules #2 and #3 (don't point it at anything you are not willing to destroy; keep finger off trigger until sights are on target), though arguably an "accidental discharge" given the chaos of the scuffle.
"I wanted to scare him" is a very very poor excuse.
With a few seconds of consideration, I'd pass this as an "excuseable homicide": old man was attacked by younger man, gun was inserted into the tussle, and given the chaos and no time to reflect upon the situation, the gun was in fact accidentally fired...in a situation where intentional firing could very well have been proper. I find the defendant innocent on the condition that he get proper training.
Was there immediate risk of grave bodily harm to an innocent? Apparently.
- Ability: the assailant was 35 presumably of average fitness...while the victim was an "old man", presumably slower, weaker and relatively brittle. Lacking further info, presumably there was a distinct disparity of force.
- Opportunity: old man was on the floor with his shirt pulled over his head, getting pummeled. The pounding was under way, not just a possibility.
- Jeaopardy: old man was being beaten, with no apparent non-leathal endpoint coming.
Lacking further info, it could have been a justifiable shooting.
BUT.
"I didn't mean to kill him," said Mr. Vides, who has no previous criminal record. "I wanted to scare him away because he was hitting us, and the gun just went off."
Violations of Rules #2 and #3 (don't point it at anything you are not willing to destroy; keep finger off trigger until sights are on target), though arguably an "accidental discharge" given the chaos of the scuffle.
"I wanted to scare him" is a very very poor excuse.
With a few seconds of consideration, I'd pass this as an "excuseable homicide": old man was attacked by younger man, gun was inserted into the tussle, and given the chaos and no time to reflect upon the situation, the gun was in fact accidentally fired...in a situation where intentional firing could very well have been proper. I find the defendant innocent on the condition that he get proper training.
jeffelkins
New member
Self-defense.
I wanted to scare him away because he was hitting us, and the gun just went off.
"Homeless" scum can now slap old men?
Please give me a break.
I wanted to scare him away because he was hitting us, and the gun just went off.
"Homeless" scum can now slap old men?
Please give me a break.
Ed Brunner
New member
He should NOT have made the statements that are now on the record.
What will all the other shoppers have to say about it?
If he would have kept his mouth shut, a good lawyer probably would have got him off.
------------------
Better days to be,
Ed
What will all the other shoppers have to say about it?
If he would have kept his mouth shut, a good lawyer probably would have got him off.
------------------
Better days to be,
Ed