Beyond any resonable doubt...that is the measure...if they have video evidence that the clerk came back and shot the guy again, after he was dead, or almost dead...there may be a problem...but if it is on the weight of some forensic examiners guess...that will never be "beyond any reasonable doubt" at least in my book.
Ohio Clerk Who Stops Armed Robbery Indicted For Manslaughter
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
Double Naught Spy
New member
Wow, pulling a Rush Linbaugh are you, backtracking but still trying to get a jab in at the opposition? LOL.
Right, so the grand jury found no reason to move forward with any charges on the initial shooting but found sufficient evidence to proceed with the subsequent shooting.
Neither, armed or not, the shot perp was involved in conducting the robbery of the store with one who was armed. They are both engaged in armed robbery even if one does not have or does not display a weapon.
The clerk wasn't cleared of a bad shooting. It was just that originally the cops had no recognized evidence to indicate that the clerk's activities were illegal.
Not necessarily
There is no law of for the situation you describe where you can be charged with shooting an unarmed perp, if things are as you said and at least one guy was armed. With that said, in many states, being inside your home as they were would count for reasonable fear for your life.
There is no law that says you can't shoot a downed but armed perp. Whether he is up or down isn't a salient criterion to whether your shot was justified. There are plenty of examples of downed wounded people continuing to fight.
Not exactly, at least not in Ohio. Because of apparently numerous cases where such terminology was used loosely and resulted in apparent wrong verdicts, Ohio actually has legal code on this point.
Also see...
http://opd.ohio.gov/RC_Casebook/jury_instructions.htm#Burden of proof; Presumptions
http://opd.ohio.gov/RC_Casebook/burden_of_proof_and_burden_of_go.htm
So the concept of 'reasonable doubt' isn't what the jurors think is reasonable or not. The court is to provide instruction as to what constitutes being reasonable doubt.
Not only that, but there is not law that stipulates where a person can or cannot be shot legally during self defense. The same criteria for what make a SD shooting justified applies to the back as well as the front.
I don't think you are asking the right question in the right way. Under stress, people often do things than in hindsight were not or did not seem logical. Running out of the store if the perp wasn't down apparently seems illogical to you. I am not sure that "down" is the issue so much as to whether or not the perp was still a threat. So why would the clerk run out of the store if the first perp was still a threat? Likely for the same reason many people would. If you have the chance to remove yourself from a situation where there is a real or perceived serious threat to you, why would you remain in proximity to the threat? If you can remove yourself from the situation, the threat to you is greatly reduced or fully alleviated.
A better question to ask is why the clerk would then go back into the store if he thought the perp was still a threat? Why go back into harm's way?
Aguila Blanca
Staff
And, after the court explains to the jury what "reasonable doubt" means, it is STILL up to the jurors to decide whether or not they think there is proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge gives the jury the definition of reasonable doubt, he/she doesn't tell the jurors how to decide the facts of the case before them.DNS said:
ScottRiqui
New member
Exactly. And even with all the instructions and evidence in the world, the jury is free to decide whatever they want anyway. There could be hi-def video of the clerk putting three bullets into the robber's motionless body, and the jury is still within its rights to return a verdict of "not guilty". The only way a judge can take the decision out of the jury's hands is before deliberation begins, either by declaring a mistrial, dismissing the case (with or without prejudice), or directing a verdict of "not guilty". The judge can't direct the jury to return a "guilty" verdict.
Ok...
Well, I guess if Rush Linbaugh read the same articles that are posted here and has seen there's not enough evidence for us to decide innocents or guilt one way or another, then yes I'm pulling a Rush Linbaugh.
FWIW, not being snarky but as a rule, I like Rush Linbaugh. Thanks!
Opposition...again,
...who's the opposition???Haven't backtracked a bit and not taking jabs at anyone.
Apologies if you or anyone else took my posts that way.
I've maintained from the onset, there's not enough evidence one could gather by the posted articles for us to say the clerk is guilty of breaking any laws or not. For anyone to presume the clerk is innocent or guilty without first having a trial would be the same mindset of many anti-gun people who claim stricter gun laws help reduce crime without getting the facts on what they're talking about. In other words, they jump to conclusions.
We do know the GJ has found sufficient evidence for an indictment but that in no way makes the clerk guilty. To make assumptions of guilt or innocents at this point is irresponsible at best.
Last edited:
Double Naught Spy
New member
Absolutely right, but it was stated by a poster that he could not reach a decision beyond any reasonable doubt, but he can't know that without first being told what constituted by reasonable doubt in Ohio courts.
Sorry, as a Rush fan, I thought you would have been up on his news. Rush Limbaugh made comments on air about Sandra Fluke being a slut and prostitute because she gave testimony for the need of birth control. This caused all sorts of outrage and so RL went on the air with a prolonged retraction saying that he should not have said those things because it made him like the liberals (the left, where he stated several insults about them and that "I became like them." http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/05/why_i_apologized_to_sandra_fluke
You did something contextually similar...
...in saying that we don't want to be doing something that we were already doing and have been doing because it would make us like the anti 2A people who are our opposition. Neither your comment or Rush's seemed particularly oriented toward worrying about what is right or wrong as much as not wanting to be like the opposition. So you stated them as anti 2A people which is rather interesting because you interjected a political jab at anti-2A people in a discussion that isn't about politics or about the 2nd Amendment.
DNS,
Whomever posted on this thread insinuating the clerk is guilty of any wrongdoing at this point is guilty of pure speculation , assumption and IMO, should cease from doing so until there's further evidence one way or the other.
The anti's and those that feel LE are the only people whom should be armed, many of which are politicians in that area, will assume enough for both sides as they did just recently when backing Harless in Canton, Ohio. Too, in the Harless case, there was even dashcam videos of Harless's repeatedly committing crimes/wrongdoing while on duty and he was/is backed by many in that area. Including a few people in power positions.
Toledo and Canton are not far apart with many having the same mindset.
If there was video of the clerk coming in and shooting the downed perp again with no just cause, or witness's stating to that effect, or even a statement to that effect from the clerk, we might be able to pass judgement. But from the info. here on this thread, we have nothing more then the GJ feels they have sufficient evidence to indict the clerk. Nothing more.
Again, I'm just saying we need to refrain from saying the clerk is innocent or guilty till more substantial evidence is known.
That being said, I'm not re-tracking, apologizing or waffling(as you stated, Rush Limbaughing
) on what I'm saying.
Whomever posted on this thread insinuating the clerk is guilty of any wrongdoing at this point is guilty of pure speculation , assumption and IMO, should cease from doing so until there's further evidence one way or the other.
The anti's and those that feel LE are the only people whom should be armed, many of which are politicians in that area, will assume enough for both sides as they did just recently when backing Harless in Canton, Ohio. Too, in the Harless case, there was even dashcam videos of Harless's repeatedly committing crimes/wrongdoing while on duty and he was/is backed by many in that area. Including a few people in power positions.
Toledo and Canton are not far apart with many having the same mindset.
If there was video of the clerk coming in and shooting the downed perp again with no just cause, or witness's stating to that effect, or even a statement to that effect from the clerk, we might be able to pass judgement. But from the info. here on this thread, we have nothing more then the GJ feels they have sufficient evidence to indict the clerk. Nothing more.
Again, I'm just saying we need to refrain from saying the clerk is innocent or guilty till more substantial evidence is known.
That being said, I'm not re-tracking, apologizing or waffling(as you stated, Rush Limbaughing
) on what I'm saying.
Last edited:
I'm a huge Rush fan. Those guys totally rock, even if I didn't quite get the synth-pop thing they were doing in the 1980's.
Oh, you meant the radio commentator? I don't see what he (or his conduct) has to do with the matter at hand. While the thought of waffles seems appetizing, we need to cut out the bickering and stay on topic. Last warning.
OK, just curious, if the heart stops, and there is no bleeding, are you dead? And, if you are dead already, when shot (again) how can that be construed as manslaughter?
The information given was that the first shot was considered ok (justified, etc), so, at that point, all is good. Now the downed bad guy is shot again, and forensic evidence indicates (not prooves, indicates) little/no bleeding, so they figure heart stopped, blood pressure near 0, etc.
Based on that, they try to bring manslaughter charges? I just don't understand the reasoning on that one...
The information given was that the first shot was considered ok (justified, etc), so, at that point, all is good. Now the downed bad guy is shot again, and forensic evidence indicates (not prooves, indicates) little/no bleeding, so they figure heart stopped, blood pressure near 0, etc.
Based on that, they try to bring manslaughter charges? I just don't understand the reasoning on that one...