Business Owner Spots Robber on Remote Security Camera, Leaves Home, and Shoots Him – Will ‘Stand Your Ground’ Apply?

image via Ben Williamson

At 4:33 a.m. on Monday, August 6, the owner of a small North Carolina business called American Beauty and Garden Center saw a robber break into his store from a monitor in his home. He called the police to report the intruder. The police also received an alert from an alarm monitoring service.

A few minutes later, the store owner called the police again and told the dispatcher that he had shot an intruder in the store. The suspect, later identified as 20-year-old Justin Anderson, was pronounced dead when the officers arrived on the scene.

According to police, Anderson had smashed through the front glass window to get inside. When the store owner arrived, the burglar ran out of the front door and was shot. He was found by cops behind the building.

Officers haven’t released any information about whether Anderson was armed, where exactly he was shot, or whether the business owner was taken into custody.

CJ Williamson, who owns a business in the same shopping center, expressed mixed feelings about the shooting:

“I never see anything like that around here. It makes me a little scared because I obviously want to protect my business. This is everything I own, this is my life.

“I kind of understand what the business owner down here is going through, but I don’t know if I would have gone through those lengths to protect my business.”

North Carolina has fairly extensive stand your ground protections on the books (see GS 14-51.2 and GS 14-51.3). However, it will be interesting to see how this case will pan out, considering that the business owner knowingly put himself in conflict with the suspect, leaving a place of safety to do so.

Here’s the news segment via WBTV:

| WBTV Charlotte

comments

  1. avatar No one of consequence says:

    I don’t think SYG will work here.

    That said, I have a hard time blaming the store owner too much.

    1. avatar Forward Assist says:

      Continuously stretching SYG to cover what it doesn’t fit is dangerous to the rest of us.

      It will be some dumbass like this that causes the rest of us to fear pulling the trigger when a perp is standing in our bedroom because SYG is repealed.

      1. avatar million says:

        in your house is Castle Doctrine.

        1. avatar Sprinter2x says:

          Unless you live in the peoples republic of Illinois.

        2. avatar Binder says:

          Sprinter2x

          Read the State laws before you comment:

          Illinois statute 720 ILCS 5/7-2 allows for the use of force against trespassers to keep them from unlawfully entering a dwelling. It reads, “A person is justified in the use of force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other’s unlawful entry into or attack upon a dwelling.”

          There are caveats on the use of deadly force against trespassers. According to the statute, use of force that is intended to cause death or great bodily harm is only okay if:

          the trespass is violent, and it is reasonable to believe that force that may cause death or great bodily harm is necessary to prevent violence or bodily harm to yourself or someone else within the dwelling
          it is reasonable to conclude that the force is necessary to prevent a felony from taking place in the home

          Illinois Statute 720 ILCS 5/7-1 protects those that use force in self defense. A person is justified in using force if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to protect himself/herself or another person against another’s use of unlawful force. The use of deadly force is only allowed if it is reasonable to believe that it was necessary to protect against imminent death or great bodily harm.

          And here is the kicker. “When the use of force is justified, the aggressor cannot claim liability against the person using force for self defense.”

      2. avatar Sian says:

        None of the defensive shootings extensively covered by the media has had anything materially to do with SYG, despite them mentioning SYG every other breath.

        It’s almost as if they’re pushing a political agenda over facts.

        1. avatar Asdf says:

          Bingo!

        2. avatar Tom says:

          Yes, that’s why it’s Fake News….. It’s never just the story and the truth. It’s always facts left out, opinions are added, or politicizing the story.

        3. avatar Indiana Tom says:

          Agree. SYG is bogus in the media.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Agree. SYG is bogus in the media.”

          Do you not understand plain language? No sane person would want to confront a criminal. Therefore, willingness to confront is insane. No sane person would want to remain in place in order to use a gun on another human. Therefore, willingness to use a gun in self-defense is insane. No sane person would rather stand their ground than flee to safety. Therefore, a willingness to stand your ground is insane.

          No insane person should be allowed to own, or possess, a gun: QED.

          See how it works?

        5. avatar DDay says:

          True. That twit on Fox, Shepard smith did a piece earlier in the week and he mentioned zimmerman who used stand your ground as a defense, they even had the text saying it on the screen. zimmerman did not use SYG at all and most public cases have not used it either.

      3. avatar RMS1911 says:

        In the house kill on sight.

    2. avatar Joel says:

      Protecting property isn’t stand your ground. I don’t know about Carolina laws but I’m pretty sure in Texas this would be covered by castle doctrine, not stand your ground.

      If my store was being broken into I would have rushed over with the intent of protecting my property. My preference would be to detain the criminal, but I don’t always get what I want.

      1. avatar Joel says:

        I would like to clarify that I am not advocating vigilante justice. Nor am I saying this particular shooting is or isn’t justifiable. The business owner may very well have stepped outside the law on this one. Time will tell.

        1. avatar neiowa says:

          “vigilante justice” WTH is vigilante justice? You some Hollywierd movie writer? Progtard?

      2. avatar CZJay says:

        My preference would be to detain the criminal, but I don’t always get what I want.

        I would detain him to avoid hearing loss, but if I had advance warning I can get the hearing protection.

      3. avatar doesky2 says:

        Yep I hope the owner kept his mouth shut and worked with his lawyer to solidify his story for the reason of entering the store.

        “Hey never expected the robber to still be there. I went there to secure the property and got surprised and threatned by the burglar. Had to protect my life. Boom”

      4. avatar Hannibal says:

        It might or might not be stand your ground. It depends upon the justification offered for the shooting. If it was shooting a criminal attempting to run away, that’s not stand your ground. If the criminal charged at the store owner, it IS stand your ground.

        What if the criminal was attempting to flee but the storeowner was literally standing in the only way out to prevent that?

        Well, that’s how laws like this get effectively destroyed.

      5. avatar Anon says:

        If you would rush from your home to your store when the police are already on the way, then your wife and kids have a moron for a husband and father. If the business were on fire would you rush there with a fire extinguisher? That’s what insurance is for Charlie Bronson. If this guy shot a dude in the back running away, he’s gonna do time and that business is going bye, bye. play stupid games win stupid prizes.

        1. avatar neiowa says:

          Thus sings a sheeple who has built/done nothing. Insurance. It is to laugh.

      6. avatar ollie says:

        We need a new law. One that allows business owners to defend their businesses with armed remote control robots. The robots could legally shoot to kill as long as an “Armed Robot Guard” warning sign is posted on the outside of the premises.

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      We all need to slow down, as usual. After calling police to make sure they were on the case, can you imagine you would just sit at home (apparently minutes away) until time to open the shop tomorrow? I can’t, I want to see what is happening to an important portion of my life. Once there, if rushed by the perp, we’re back to SYG. Apparently we can expect every bit to be on video, should be interesting.

      1. avatar doesky2 says:

        Sounds good to me. Acquit.

        Hope his video doesn’t go against him.

        However I’d still acquit because victims making poor decisions during stressful scenario that they wouldn’t be in that scenario if it wasn’t for the actions of the criminal.

        If the victim makes a bad decision, oh well, that’s not the victims fault. The criminal precipateted the whole string of events.

      2. avatar Anon says:

        Then your a buffoon, who thinks he’s Charles Bronson. That’s what insurance is for schmuck.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Did you buy this guy some insurance? What makes you think he had any? And how would his insurance (or lack thereof) be any of your business? The perp should have had life insurance, too, and if he did, is everything OK, now? Try some thinking.

    4. avatar arc says:

      This is a case for a jury… my vote would like hinge on if the criminal tried to flee immediately or not. Then again there looks to be only one entrance and exit so its a catch 22. Need security footage and it obviously exists.

      Looks like a hydroponics / fertilizer store, not sure what someone would want to steal out of there? Unless there were some pageant / show plants that were worth several hundred a pop. Show plants you have raised from scratch are easily worth killing over.

      1. avatar CWT says:

        Equipment to grow weed.

      2. avatar Calvin says:

        Depending on the fert, precursors to meth

      3. avatar doesky2 says:

        The only chance I’d convict the owner would be if on video the burglar was spread eagle on his face with his hands out and the owner walked over and plugged him in the back of the head. And even then I’d might let him walk if the criminal had a rap sheet.

    5. avatar Bob999 says:

      When an alarm goes off, the typical drill is to call the police first, and then call an RP (responsible party) next. The RP responds to the location to meet the police and help where necessary. It happens sometimes where the RP gets there before the police. Assuming he called a lawyer to speak for him, that would have been the official story. If he opened his mouth and said he went there to stop the guy from taking his stuff, then he is in trouble.

      1. avatar doesky2 says:

        I sure hope he kept his pie-hole shut.

        1. avatar Anon says:

          He probably didn’t, because the type of guy that would rush over to his place of business with a gun like he did knowing the cops where in route is likely a fucking idiot. Just goes to show; you don’t have to be smart to run a small business.

  2. avatar Andy Buckmichael says:

    Typical useless scum cops. The owner gets there before they do.

    1. avatar Ed says:

      Yep, 4:30 am and this guy got the alert, called 911 and reported in, got dressed, traveled to the scene and he was the first one there? How busy exactly were the cops at 4:30 am that he made it there before them. Sounds to me more like cop nap time got interupted and dude obviously had to do what he had to do. Now, put a badge on him and ask yourself if he would get charged? I don’t really care if the perp was armed or not. Breaking and entering should justify getting shot, period. So now, because the cops DIDN’T do their job, and he did it for them, defending his property from some shitbag hes gonna get fucked. Fuckin useless cops,Fuck em.

      1. avatar Sal Chichon says:

        100% concur

      2. avatar Andy Buckmichael says:

        Amen.

      3. avatar Sam C says:

        Night shift dispatcher here for a medium sized city…..you would be suprised what happens at those hours. It can go from a long time of silence on the radio to go time in an instant

        1. avatar Andy Buckmichael says:

          Bull shit. I live where I can monitor cops 24 hours a day. They are useless. Stealing money from the city.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Yeah, rii-i-i-ight. Once it goes to go time, does anybody go?

      4. avatar Ragnarredbeard says:

        Would note that police departments have limited resources and must assign personnel when and where they will be most useful. Not sure how this guy’s local department works, but where I live they have twice as many cars/officers available on the day shift than on the night shift.

        So the cops getting there after the owner is likely just a consequence of having limited numbers of officers on duty at 0430.

      5. avatar The Other Larry in Texas says:

        A couple of decades ago, I worked in dispatch-night shift in a large county in Texas. For a large county, the Sheriff’s patrol division was very understaffed. The calls are prioritized and property crimes were low priority. I had people call back all the time asking why haven’t we responded yet. I’d tell them we are inadequately staff by the Commissioners Court and calls are prioritized and we will eventually get there. In this incident, when the owner called and said he shot burglar, it changed to high priority. A burglar was killed, I won’t lose any sleep.

      6. avatar doesky2 says:

        Yep, 4:30 am and this guy got the alert, called 911 and reported in, got dressed, traveled to the scene and he was the first one there?

        Pertinent information…… Krispy Kreme is HQ’d in NC.

      7. avatar Anon says:

        What’s the longest you’ve gone between stints convict? You even allowed to own guns?

        1. avatar Huntmaster says:

          Troll

    2. And exactly how was the Store Owner personally threatened by bodily injury from the comfort and security of being at his home…

      1. avatar million says:

        You are allowed to use non-lethal force to defend your property. The perp obviously assaulted the store owner for disrupting his attempt at theft thus forcing the store owner to kill him.

        1. avatar UlnarNerveDysfunction says:

          And calling to Police wasn’t an Option!/? Even at 4:30 in the morning…

        2. avatar million says:

          when seconds count, the police are minutes away.

        3. avatar jwtaylor says:

          “The perp obviously assaulted the store owner”
          That’s nowhere in the story,the video or print version. Where did you get that?

        4. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Uh, he called the police immediately, they were notified separately by alarm activation, seems like a reasonable assumption that they would beat him there, if they were going to respond at all. Showing up to assist the police as they defend your property seems the polite and considerate thing for an owner to do. Waiting for the video. Video of police activities at the same time would also be interesting.

        5. avatar doesky2 says:

          That’s nowhere in the story,the video or print version. Where did you get that?

          That’s in his lawyers standard playbook page 1 and it sounds very plausible to me.
          Doesn’t it to everybody else?
          All he needs is 8% of the jury to agree.

      2. avatar Icabod says:

        The store owner is alerted. He calls police and, at the same time, the police get notified by the burglar alarm.
        Is there any legal reason that the owner cannot go to his store? If the alarm was audible, then the burglar would know he’s been discovered. Odds are, by the time the owner arrives, the crook would be gone. Hopfully, the police will have arrived.
        The burglar is reported as having “run out the front door.” Is it possible the store owner was in the way? We don’t know if the crook was armed, or what he was carrying, or how close the two were. Last, I’d be very interested in how far the owner had to travel and how long it took him.

        1. And how far away did the Store Owner LIVE from the Store he owned? Seconds Away or more than 10 minutes Away. I doubt that the Store Owner greeted the Robber wearing Pajama’s, a Bathrobe and Fuzzy Slippers on…

        2. avatar jwm says:

          UND, even here in glorious CA we citizens are allowed to make a citizens arrest. No law says that a business owner cannot respond to his business being broken into.

          Same as if his fire alarm was going off. He has every right to respond to his property.

          Leftist victim blame. The rest of us live in the real world.

        3. avatar anon says:

          And if the fire alarm was going off and you could see a blaze on camera would you rush down there with a fire extinguisher? If you say yes your a liar, stupid or both. It’s called insurance goof ball.

        4. avatar jwm says:

          anon. An asshole calling me a goof ball. If you witness your business being robbed or burned do you just roll over and go back to sleep?

          Maybe you antifa types have nothing of value, nothing that you’ve worked to create, but a lot of folks have their heart and soul invested into their business.

        5. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Anontroll, are you an insurance salesman or something? You got your family insured so if they are threatened you can just ignore it, let ’em die? Are your cars insured so you can just ram people you don’t like? Constant “insurance” comments make you sound like a moron.

  3. avatar DaveL says:

    It sounds like the account of the shooting leaves out practically all the details that would be relevant to deciding on Justification. He ran out the front door – where was the shooter at this time? This could mean anything from the burglar charging out the front door directly towards the shooter while holding a knife, all the way to an unarmed burglar being shot in the back while in full flight.

    1. avatar ANONNYMOUS says:

      @DAVEL,

      Mental Health …

      I do agree about the lack of details, but again this is an internet blog; if you catch my drift. That said, let’s review the ‘before’ the actual ‘reported’ shooting:

      1) … this is reported to be a hopefully (legal) business. If this place of business/occurrence was ‘not’ also an occupied living space (home), with a threat to life/limb being immediate –I do not see the justification to present –never mind discharge the firearm.

      1a) … this is said to be a business, did the owner, for any reason, not have general business insurance; to handle the loss? If not, then I am thinking this owner/managers business did not mean all that much to him/her.

      Mental Health

      2) … from a remote location, the business owner/manager witnesses a possible situation dangerous enough to call the authorities (police) –then said owner/manager **after calling the police**, arms him/herself, travels from a possible safe location directly into harm’s way (the business, SCENE OF THE REPORTED CRIME) knowing the police are possibly en-route to that same location responding to a recent report of a crime; is that what I am hearing?

      **** Absolutely Brilliant! ****

      Mental Health

      This is sad.

      1. avatar DaveL says:

        None of that has any legal relevance to self-defense.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        That’s just silly. The owner travels directly to his store every day, deliberately putting himself in harm’s way since somebody may be turning his life around there today, who dindunuffin yesterday. Obviously we should prosecute the owner for being such an irresponsible daredevil as to open a legal business. IOW, he can visit his business whenever he likes, open or not. Trying to find an excuse to blame him for someone else’s crime is just silly. Spend your money on a jury trial if you like, there are tens of millions of us who will never find him guilty, and it only takes one.

      3. avatar CWT says:

        Just as reasonable to suggest the owner having called the police, gotten dressed and geared up was fully expecting the police to be on the scene when he arrived.

      4. avatar Mater says:

        Insurance isn’t free you do understand that any time you use insurance your rates go up or there is thousands of dollars of deductibles its not just free screw that theif good riddance maybe the cops will get there first next time to protext the robber

        1. avatar ANONNYMOUS says:

          Insurance and a healthy state of mind is far less costly than what his/her upcoming legal fee’s are going to be.

        2. avatar neiowa says:

          Again (and again and again and….) with “insurance”. You shilling for GEICO you fool?

  4. avatar Gman says:

    I don’t think this is a SYG issue. Justification comes from the circumstances of the encounter, or not.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      I think you are spot on here. The law of excusable use of lethal force is very mature and fairly consistent across jurisdictions.

      One of the criteria is the “duty to retreat”. Another way of putting this is “no viable alternative to the use of lethal force”. The “duty to retreat” includes the caveat of “with complete safety”; it’s unusual – rare – that there is a path of retreat that could be exploited with “complete safety”.

      Prosecutors may tell the jury that the self-defender defendant had some viable opportunity to retreat or alternative to use of lethal force. ‘She could have stepped inside the door.’ ‘She could have slammed the door.’ SYG simply eliminates – or substantially dilutes – the prosecutor from using such a tactic to seduce the jury into imagining a retreat/alternative that didn’t seem viable to the self-defender.

      In any case, the self-defender must still jump through all the other hoops. This self-defender had a right to confront a burglar. The outcome will turn on whether he had a reasonable fear that the burglar had the means, opportunity and intention to inflict lethal force on this proprietor. If he is able to present evidence of these 3 elements he might not have much trouble with duty-to-retreat or alternative.

      1. avatar KBonLI says:

        Even here in NY per NYS Penal Law 35.20 “may use deadly physical force upon such person when he reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such burglary” This may be “a dwelling or building” Building is later defined as “structure, vehicle or watercraft used for overnight lodging of persons, or used by persons for carrying on business therein”.

  5. avatar Transvalue says:

    Lots of facts missing

    If the business owner got the alert, and called police. and the police were also notified by the alarm company, how is it that the business owner had time to (presumably at 4:30 am) get dressed, get to his car and drive to the business before police arrive?

    I would think a reasonable person would expect the police to already be there and the suspect either gone or in police custody.

    Now a reasonable person would also have the right to defend themselves in that situation if the robber attacked them.

    Without all the facts, my gut reaction would go to the law abiding business person. But facts are supposed to change opinion.

  6. avatar DaveL says:

    Also, the whole “left a place of safety to go somewhere where someone might want to do him harm” is not a consideration in most jurisdictions, as looking as he had a legal right to be there. One notable exception is Washington DC, where the precedent-setting case involved a black man leaving his hotel while it was besieged by a racist mob.

    1. avatar million says:

      What case is that?

      1. avatar DaveL says:

        Laney v. United States, US Court of Appeals DC Circuit, 1923.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      That “leaving a place of safety” jive is just bunk. Owner leaves his home (place of safety) to go to his business every day to work, where someone may do him harm in order to steal his money.

  7. avatar Cuteandfuzzybunnies says:

    Generally you have a right to protect property. Did the bad guy assault him on the way out ? Did he have a weapon, even anything that could be a club ?

    I don’t think going there was smart. Although. He seams to have arrived around the same time as police. He’s lucky the police didn’t shoot him by mistake.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Now, THAT is a really crappy attitude! Believe it or not, the police are NEVER supposed to shoot the law-abiding business owner, stating that would be the expected result to the point that he was “lucky” is massively insulting to the police as well as to society in general.

      1. avatar Brian Gangle says:

        Right, cause the police don’t EVER accidentally shoot the good guy by mistake.

        1. avatar FedUp says:

          Funny how 100 dead cops a year is considered a national tragedy,
          while cops killing 100 crime victims a year is a reason to call you paranoid if you worry about becoming one of them.

        2. avatar Andy Buckmichael says:

          The number of cops needs to increase greatly.

        3. avatar dlj95118 says:

          @Andy Buck

          I require clarification.

          Are you openly advocating that more police officers should be killed?

        4. avatar Chris Mallory says:

          dlj95118

          I will clearly say that it would be better for 1000 cops to die than one citizen have his rights violated or his body or property harmed in anyway.

          Citizens are more important than government employees. PERIOD.

        5. avatar huntmaster says:

          Oh right. Government employees aren’t citizens. Troll..

  8. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    “No Duty To Retreat” *might* apply depending on the immediate, narrow moments right before the guy fired the gun.

    More interesting will be the posturing already working its way into the framing of the story. What business is it of the store owner to defend his store, his livelihood, himself, his life? With the police called, his prerogative is to sit there and ride it out. Who are you to shape your own destiny citizen, tovarich?

    Really, how can an overlord let a city burn so they can get it out of their system — just making up a hypothetical, here — if the residents and store owners are gonna fight back, even though the folks there to keep the peace have been pulled out? If you make your own choices, about your own life, for your own good, in your own terms, what’s an overlord to do?

    For an example, I was gonna go with “allow free-fire zones n a weekly death rate of about three mass shootings for years, because ‘policy'”, but that would have been just crazy.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      “With the police called, his prerogative is to sit there and ride it out.” You raise an interesting line of inquiry that we all ought to ponder.

      First, let’s take this particular case. The proprietor sees that it’s just one guy. So, maybe he is going to steal a case of goods. That’s mere “property”; not something to risk your own life over. He called the cops and had a reasonable expectation that they would arrive. Perhaps not soon enough to stop the loss of a case of goods; but enough to arrest the possibility of an extravagant looting. (I’m making a pretty good case for the imprudence of the proprietor’s intervention. Also, a good case against weighing of property over life.)

      Next, let’s take a widespread urban riot. The quintessential case was that of the 1992 Rodney King riots where Korean grocers defended their businesses. Here, the police consciously retreated leaving the rioters absolutely free field. The rioters were intent on the thorough looting of merchandise, probable destruction of the premises and possible arson. No one proprietor could be certain that none of the stores was occupied; i.e., a possible threat to life. At what point does a threat to property rise to a level that a proprietor may defend it with lethal force?

      It occurs to me that the Won’t-Issue states cheerfully issue carry permits to armored car drivers. It seems perfectly clear that the drivers are armed to protect property; they would not be in jeopardy but for their occupational purpose of transporting property safely. It is merely a pretext that the driver is presumed to use lethal force to protect his own life.

      Suppose a hypothetical. A gang of robbers – football linemen – surrounds an armed driver and explains to him the business the gang is about. They will relieve him of the burden of his money bag. The will do so without violence, or with only such violence as the linemen minimally require to separate him from his bag. They clearly explain to him that they will do no permanent damage to any of his limbs; they don’t have to. In this hypothetical – yet realistic – scenario there is no doubt that the driver is protecting property without a reasonable fear of life or limb.

      I submit that our society has a problem dealing with such a hypothetical. If the “rule” of civilization in our nation is that life trumps property then the armored car driver is forbidden the use of lethal force to counter NON-lethal force. If this is so then many other scenarios of robbery (of property) lacking an ostensible show of lethal force come into grave doubt. We would seem to be admitting that strong-armed robbery is permitted everywhere that there is no larger and stronger man to intervene with non-lethal force.

      Have we become so “civilized” that we are ready to accept strong-armed robbery as a permitted way of life? If so, then isn’t the logical consequence of this conclusion to dis-arm armored car drivers? What would be the impact on commerce, and the consequential cost-of-living for peaceable citizens?

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Everyone likes to bring up those Korean store owners, including me, but we also must realize a shortcoming. Next time that happens, it’s possible someone will have to shoot, perhaps kill, one or more of the looters. THEN we will find out if any kind of precedent was set. Personally, I think I’d try to wing one or two, hoping they would leave the premises and avoid police interference. “What happened here?” “What do you care, you left us to die!?” Because firing on looters from the safety of the roof is *exactly* what everybody keeps screeching we cannot do, killing to protect property only.

        1. avatar FedUp says:

          The roof might not be a place of safety if rioters are looting and torching buildings.

          I can’t remember if fires were a major feature of those particular LA riots, but they were in Watts in the 1960s.

        2. avatar Anon says:

          The legal justification of the roof top Koreans is that they had a legal right to be in their shops and that if threatened with arson or a mob (which is lethal force) they could open fire. Obviously in practice many of them exceeded that and fired to protect propriety, impossible to prosecute given the circumstances.

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Wait, now, Anon, my recollection was that none of them actually fired, that was the basis of my comment that we would have to see what happens when they do. Are you sure some of them fired and had to explain why?

      2. avatar KBonLI says:

        NYS Penal law is very specific when it comes to prevent arson. Deadly force is permitted.

      3. avatar TweetyRex says:

        Silly rabbit! Armored car drivers can shoot to protect the BANK’S money, but you can’t shoot to protect yours. Institutions are important, peons are just peons. Do not think that your life/property/safety are of any importance compared to a financial institution. The rules are different for those at the top.

      4. avatar Jim Bullock says:

        There you go thinking, again. (All of you.)

        Almost like you were citizens of a Re[public: governance is your problem, and you try to approach it morally.

        I’ve had a crappy couple weeks. You people give me hope. Not much, but, you know, you take what you can get.

  9. avatar raptor jesus says:

    He had (or should have had) insurance covering the store.

    There was no reason for him to leave the safety of his house and kill another man.

    Even if he was threatened, he put himself in the position to be threatened.

    1. avatar MarkPA says:

      It logically follows that all property owners have a DUTY to civilization to buy robbery and theft insurance. They must pay whatever premiums the insurance companies determine to be actuarially required.

      The field of property is entirely open; anyone is free – without fear of death or injury – to take whatever he pleases if it is not securely fastened or guarded by a phalanx of superior football linebackers.

      Property owners are at liberty to economize however they might. Perhaps they will remain uninsured and armor-up their shops, homes and storage buildings. Shops will keep merchandise out of reach in locked cabinets with heavy glass and iron bars. Malls will hire roving bands of linebackers to grab pilferers.

      Premiums will be paid to the insurers offering the best rates. Doubtlessly, unlicensed and unregulated “insurance” companies will cover the risks of property losses without the expense of regulatory compliance, claim forms and like overhead. Some sense of order will be maintained whether the policing is performed by uniformed (but unarmed) agents of the state or others with a more robust mode of influence.

      1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

        I know a bit about the cost of business insurance, in a retail store environment.

        The fact of the matter is, most businesses insure the building the business is in from fire, flood, catastrophe, etc.

        The contents of the store, not so much. The cost of insuring the contents of a store is *astronomical* in real life. Why, you ask?

        Insurance fraud.

        If the store owner has expensive inventory, it would be so *easy* for the store owner to pass along the details of the burglar alarm wiring to a thief so that while the shopkeeper is out of town, the business is cleaned out.

        In the real world, businesses harden their stores against break-in, hard enough that the store alarm being triggered buys enough time for the cops to show up and catch the thieves in the act.

        How? Replace those huge easily-broken glass windows with Lexan, a breakage-resistant clone of Plexiglass. Security bars on the *inside* of those Lexan windows, so crooks can’t hook a chain up to them and yank them off with a truck.

        Replace the bolts holding onto the door pulls with nylon hardware, so the chain-and-truck-trick won’t work on them either.

        Big-ass concrete planters in front of the store to act as bollards to make the store front ram-resistant.

        Those are a few of the highlights, there are others. Force the crooks to work for their hoped-for payoff…

    2. avatar Anymouse says:

      It depends on why he went to his store. If he went intending to apprehend the robber, it was a bad idea.

      However, he may have expected the robber to have left or been captured by the police, and he would be there to report what was stolen/damaged, provide video recordings, give access to police, secure any broken doors or windows, clean up for business the next day, and start an insurance claim. If he went for the second reasons and was attacked by the robber, it’s probably a good shoot. If he tried to clear the building himself, and the robber was unarmed or didn’t attack, he might be in legal trouble.

      The prudent thing to do would have been to stay in the vehicle and wait for police to arrive if they’re not already on the scene. Let a team of police clear the building instead of 1 guy. Same if you come home and find a door or window busted. Unless you expect a loved one to still be inside, call the police and let them clear the house and tell you it’s safe to go in. The recommendations I’ve heard are to have at least 3:1 against an armed, entrenched opponent.

    3. avatar DaveL says:

      This is the kind of thinking that tells people of color they’re legally trapped indoors if the Klan is on the march. No, in most jurisdictions, it is not incumbent upon the law-abiding to avoid lawful activities because it could make them targets of the lawless.

    4. avatar CZJay says:

      Yeah! People should be forced to buy insurance so criminals can steal without resistance or danger. That way cops won’t have to speed through town putting the public at risk. Just give a large portion of your property to an insurance company, politicians and the criminal. You should also be forced to buy health insurance just in case a criminal hurts you as he steals from you. If you choose to own a gun you should also have to buy insurance for that too.

    5. avatar doesky2 says:

      What a puss.

  10. avatar JOHN B THAYER says:

    Only very sick societies value the lives of criminals.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I honestly consider that a valid perspective. In today’s tech environment video equipment is not prohibitive, I could see laws changing to the point where the LEO sees video showing perp breaking into store and not surviving, declaring “case closed” and commencing to clean up the spatter. What other questions are productive for our society?

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        The criminal’s family should have to pay for the clean up and damage. The insurance companies would love that.

  11. avatar Shire-man says:

    Why risk it? Call the cops, grab a bag of chips, continue to watch the camera. This is what insurance is for.

  12. avatar Dog of War says:

    Honestly; I don’t know, but I’m trending towards no. If he went to his store with the explicit intent of doing harm to protect his property then probably not. But if he went there, and just happened to get involved with a DGU, them maybe.

    Either way this was probably not going to work out for this business owner. Even if he skates on a charge the partisan media is probably going to have a field day with this and drive him out of business.

  13. avatar Junior says:

    I’m in a different state, but if I was a DA that wanted to procecute him, I’d tell the jury that the owner went down to the store to kill the robber. That’s premeditated. Regardless of whether or not he was legally justified, I don’t think it was worth it. But time will tell.

  14. avatar Imayeti says:

    Not enough information to make a call. If the dirtbag was armed, and the owner didn’t know in advance, and owner can claim he feared for his life he might walk. A lot also depends on what the owner says. There’s latitude to even lie if he’s careful. If the perp wasn’t armed and presented no threat, tell the owner to say hi to Baba for me.

  15. avatar former water walker says:

    I think the store owner is in trouble…how was he threatened? I have no problem shooting a bad guy but hey I think he went too far. Not SYG at all…

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      How was he not threatened?

      All we know for sure is he was alone with a felon, and then shot the felon.
      We have no idea what prompted the shooting, probably because the shooter knows when to STFU.

  16. avatar Sich says:

    I wonder how long it’s going to take for the Insurance Companies to drop the Store Owner for an act of Stupidity. By actively putting himself into Harm’s Way, when a Simple phone call to the Police was all that was required…

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Police are not your call boys.

      1. avatar Sich says:

        Never said they were!/? But only Shop Owners without Product Theft Insurance are dumb enough to race to a store to confront a “Possibly” Armed Robber to Risk their own Lives.

        1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

          “But only Shop Owners without Product Theft Insurance are dumb enough to…”

          You’ve obviously never owned a brick-and-mortar business, have you?

          Call your insurance guy-gal up and get 2 quotes for insurance for a retail business, one with content theft coverage, the other for the business structure itself, fire, flood, catastrophe, etc.

          The first one will be eye-watering more expensive than the second…

        2. avatar Sich says:

          So I guess the Wife could have carried on the Business, after the Husband got himself Killed confronting the Robber instead of letting the Police do their jobs. But not until After Burial Services that the Insurance Company probably would NEVER Pay Out On for a act of Stupidity by the Husband trying to prove his manhood by false Bravado of an encounter with the Robber. Or even Suicide By Police, because of the Police not knowing Who’s Who…

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Always good to read before commenting. Apparently that call would NOT suffice, since he made the call yet beat the cops to the store at 4:30 in the morning.

  17. avatar PATRON49IFT says:

    I don’t know if SYG will apply here. I do know if I was on his jury I would not vote to convict. This kind of B and E/burglary shite goes on and is excused all the time; i.e. he was just getting his life back on track, etc. I for one am fed up with it. If you don’t want to get shot/hurt; don’t break in. Don’t do stupid things in wrong places to the wrong people, to paraphrase.

    All that being said, the store owner is in deep trouble on multiple fronts. We must not let ego and anger determine our actions especially where firearms are concerned. Different story if his home was being broken into. Sad all around.

  18. avatar Stereodude says:

    TTAG “STAFF WRITER” writes click bait blog post. Will ‘Stand Your Ground’ Apply?

  19. avatar Ralph says:

    You can cry for the thief all you want. Personally, I’m glad the BG is dead. The store owner deserves a medal.

    1. avatar Ing says:

      Whether stand-your-ground applies or not, high-fives definitely do apply.

      Thus always to tyrants and thieves.

    2. avatar doesky2 says:

      Think of all the future B&E’s that won’t occur.
      Give him a medal.

  20. avatar tdiinva says:

    No, no lives were threatened. You call the cops. Not only that, the cops role up and see a guy with gun a crime seen. What could go wrong?

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Well, by the time they “rolled up” (probably before they put down the donuts) he had called to tell them he’d shot the intruder, they had better NOT shoot him after that.

      1. avatar tdiinva says:

        And yet we just had an incident where the cops arrived at the wrong time. You want to at Russian roulette with a Glock be my guest.

        There is only one case where I would go after someone stealing my property and that would be if he trying to walk off with my firearms. Just can stand your ground, doesn’t mean you should.

      2. avatar Anon says:

        Larry,… we get it,… your a cop hater. They probably fucked / fuck with you a lot when you were a kid and maybe even now as an old man. Let me tell ya why Larry. Here’s the secret,…it’s your fault, your a dick, and a criminal. You may not think you are, but likely you are. You just think the laws you break shouldn’t be laws and aren’t important and that you should be the one that gets to decide that. This whole “all thief’s need to be shot” act is just that, an act. I’ve known tons of guys like you dude, odds are you’ve done worse than most of these crooks at some point in your life. Every guy I’ve ever dealt with, with your attitude has, and they’re sooooooo shocked when they get found out. Odds are you were and still are a punk, just an old punk now.

  21. avatar Kenneth says:

    Examine logically. The owner has every right to go check out his property when he hears the alarm. He has every right to be there, even though he didn’t HAVE to be there. No SYG law demands that one MUST be in his position, in order to defend it. So he was in a place he is entitled to be, and he sees a perp in his store. He is not legally allowed to shoot him just for being there, but if the perp took a step towards him, SYG might apply.
    All the STY laws do is try to change the old way of thinking(the victim must run away, and only if flight is not possible can he defend himself) to a new thought process whereby the victim has no duty to retreat(run away) but can defend himself against attack anywhere he is legal to be(not in store he broke into).
    So, if the store owner was being attacked, or in danger of, SYG might apply. He had a legal right to be there, so he is entitled to stand his ground, giving up not an inch. But if the perp saw him come in and put up his hands and laid on the floor, the owner is not being attacked, so SYG wouldn’t apply.
    SYG is situation dependent, not at all what the MSM make it out to be.

  22. avatar Sheep dog says:

    The last two stories have nothing to do with anything, other than the MSM trying to stoke an emotional response from the low information sheep. The progressives are building their case to REPEAL STAND YOUR GROUND LAWS!!!! That’s it.
    Both cases are on very shaky ground. POTG must be Very careful how we apply SYG.
    The case where the guy parked in the handicapped spot, the gun owner was the primary aggressor he should’ve minded his own damn business. If he was that concerned about it call the police.
    2nd case that’s not his job to stop the bad guy that’s why we have the police. He should’ve waited in the parking lot for the police to show up. If the BG left the store be a good whiteness.

    Now both of those tool sheds are going to be lied about in the media, gun rights, POTG, and SYG are all going to be the targets of the leftist agenda to make it as difficult as possible to defend yourself . They have to justify why they did what they did. It may have been leagel but imo it wasn’t moral.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Sheesh. It definitely *IS* his job to stop someone stealing/destroying his property. Has been for at least 10,000 years, get over yourself! If in the process he is attacked, he has the right to defend himself. Police have no responsibility to defend his damn LIFE, much less his property, relying on them is suicidal.

  23. avatar CZJay says:

    “I never see anything like that around here. It makes me a little scared because I obviously want to protect my business. This is everything I own, this is my life.

    I kind of understand what the business owner down here is going through, but I don’t know if I would have gone through those lengths to protect my business.”

    The only way you can protect your livelihood is to do it by force. Laws and insurance won’t do the job better than your or the cops’ gun.

    I side with the victim [business owner] in this case. Now hopefully other young people realize you will die when you mess with someone else’s property/livelihood.

    Criminals know you can’t mess with other criminals because they will kill you. Criminals think they can mess with law abiding people because the law makes it so you can’t harm criminals. Politicians protect criminals because without criminals politicians and law enforcement wouldn’t be necessary.

    1. avatar anon says:

      Criminals “mess” with each other all the time, in fact that’s primarily who they “mess” with, your very wrong about that.

  24. avatar FedUp says:

    Uh-oh.
    American Beauty and Garden Center is a hydroponic supply shop catering to MJ growers.

    I don’t know about NC, but here in the midwest, the cops have been living high on the War on Drugs for decades and they HATE legal MJ with a passion.

    And if you think our police chiefs are bad, you should listen to the persecuting attorneys bitch and moan about legalization and medical MJ programs. They must be salivating over the idea of sticking it to the owner of a grow room supplier.

  25. avatar Sprinter2x says:

    It sounds like the perp was shot in the back. “shot as he was leaving”. That being the case I’d say the shooter is in trouble. On the other hand if the perp was shot on his front side perhaps the owner encountered him as he, the owner, was entering and the perp was leaving. That situation could have been interpreted, by the business owner, as being charged by the perp, armed or not, and shooting might be seen by the DA as justifiable. Difficult situation at best. Along with carrying a gun comes a LOT of responsibility.

      1. avatar doesky2 says:

        That’s some nice shooting and it better have been because the clerk was the backstop.

    1. avatar FedUp says:

      I pull up to my store, see a broken window.
      I walk up to the window.
      Somebody in the store rushes straight at me.
      Yes, he’s running ‘out of the store’, but he’s running straight at me.

      Police ‘use of force’ experts seem to agree that an adult running straight at you, even if buck naked, is a threat to be eliminated with deadly force (at least when the person utilizing deadly force has a badge)

  26. avatar Anon says:

    In NC, SYG applies to your home, car and place of work. Him showing up should not be an issue, I don’t think SYG applies but if the owner was attacked or tried to make a citizens arrest and the burglar attacked him, he should be okay.
    Am I right?

  27. avatar Sam I Am says:

    These things always puzzle me. What/which property is worth a life?

    If a business owner is present at a business, and is confronted with an armed intruder, the issue becomes defense of life, not property. If a business owner is home, business closed, and a gang of twenty bust into the business, where is the gain from the business owner arriving at the scene, putting his life at risk over property. Even if the business owner has not insurance on the business, if alive the owner can start over; if dead, not so much.

    Maybe not understanding the dynamic is why I am not a business owner.

    1. avatar Joel says:

      I have owned and operated my own business. Starting your own company is literally like having a child. It consumes every aspect of your life.

      Also, there are WAY too few facts to pass judgment here. How many times has he been robbed? Did he know the perp? Former employee? Did the perp attack?

      I hate to sound this way but being killed is and should be an occupational hazard if you choose a life of crime. One of the few facts we are aware of is a lawbreaker died. Not an innocent bystander, someone who was caught in the act of violating another’s property and livelihood.

    2. avatar Mister Fleas says:

      Considering that a thief is not merely worthless but rather a blight on society, then property is worth more than life in this case.

    3. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

      “These things always puzzle me. What/which property is worth a life?”

      When the property in question is your livelihood?

      Mess with how someone supports their family, pay the price…

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “When the property in question is your livelihood?”

        If one dies “protecting” livelihood, livelihood becomes irrelevant, does it not? Can the remaining family survive on the results of fruitless heroics?

        Remaining alive allows one to start over. Being dead sort of ends things, permanently.

  28. avatar adverse5 says:

    No.

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      Bullshit.
      I hope I get called for jury duty.
      I know how to avoid getting placed but how about wanting to be picked?
      Act dumb and persuadable?

  29. avatar Possum says:

    I know in FL stand your ground and use of force for self defense is not justified to defend property. For an armed robbery it is justified if the victim is obviously present and threatened. The moment you take your car (or bike, or the bus…) to go somewhere take care of business, you will lose legally UNLESS there is a victim on scene being in danger of great bodily harm (serious injury or death).

    1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

      “I know in FL stand your ground and use of force for self defense is not justified to defend property.”

      Really?

      Lethal force is justified in car-jacking in Florida…

  30. avatar fteter says:

    I’m really torn on this one.

    On one hand, SYG is generally intended for situations where you would reasonably feel that life or physical well-being is threatened. Nobody’s life or physical well-being seemed to be on the line in this particular burglary. Hopping in your car and driving to the scene of the crime pretty much tosses the “reasonable threat of harm” argument out the window.

    On the other hand, a perp like this clearly needed killing. And the shooter has definitely rendered a great service by improving the gene pool. Rather than prosecuting the guy, we should probably give him a medal and encourage him to keep up the good work.

    1. avatar BradleyD says:

      Laws aren’t about justice, they are about order. In this instance, we want to prevent ordinary citizens from going out and enforcing laws when the police can. Why? Third order effect.

      Mr Joe Citizen goes to stop a robbery at his store. He shoots and kills said perp. Now he is open to civil and criminal litigation. Think he won’t have to fight off a wrongful death suit in court? If the police arrived and found the perp they had less than lethal devices and could have arrested him. He is a private citizen and someone is dead.

      Things go badly and Mr Citizen gets hurt. He has bad healthcare coverage, can’t pay his bills. His business goes under. Since he can’t pay his $300,000 in medical bills the hospital has a choice: eat the debt or pass it along to other consumers. I think they will pass it along. Now you’re paying $70 for advil.

      The point is we don’t want people going out trying to enforce laws that they may or may not have the best knowledge of.

  31. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    Seems like a good shoot to me.

  32. avatar Kap says:

    too bad this isn’t Texas where you can protect property, NC is more civilized than that! but SYG does not apply as Owner escalated the situation by hunting the guy!

  33. avatar Wally1 says:

    One issue discussed in this forum is police response time (or lack thereof). Many times it’s not the actual officer, let me explain. In the city I worked in (I am now retired) our old style dispatch center had report to dispatch and arrival on scene time that was within two minutes. In the late 90’s the dispatched center was then “upgraded” to new computer aided dispatch system. Efficient? hardly. With the new system from the time the dispatch center received the call by a call taker, then information put in the computer, then information transferred to the actual person who radioed /dispatched the officer, It could be 15 minutes before the officers actually received the report, then they had to respond.
    In one instance we were parked in a mall parking lot when a call came out of an “In Progress” call of a person with a gun in the same parking lot. To our surprise this “In progress” call was already 20 minutes old before we were dispatched. The perp was long gone and it may have occurred even before we had parked in the lot. Real world police safety concern. Admin did not care, they were all sold a bill of goods on the new computer aided dispatch center that actually significantly increased response times. But hey, It was easier record keeping. Just another example of “Unintended consequences”.

  34. avatar BradleyD says:

    It seems like a shockingly bad idea. He saw one person in the store at the time but what if there had been more? Two guys in a car waiting or another out of sight? So our guy wanders down to his store, confronts one guy, and then gets himself shanked or shot in the meantime. Now not only is he out of his store goods he is looking at a hospital stay or death. Going solo looks cool in the movies, less in real life.

    Property can be replaced and, if you had a lick of sense, you have insurance to cover it all. Pick the hill you’re going to die on and choose your battles. Someone comes into my house while I’m there? Sure. Am I going to enter and clear my house alone if I come home to a broken door? No thanks.

  35. avatar Mud Thompson says:

    You guys are making a mountain out of a mole hill. As long as he didn’t shoot him in the back, as in running away he is not going to be convicted. End of story.

  36. avatar todd says:

    No, stand your ground won’t apply. SYG is also known as “avoidance”. How can you claim avoidance when you deliberately went to the scene?

  37. avatar little horn says:

    i dont see why he would be charged even though none those laws apply here ( SYG, CD). we shall see.

  38. avatar Nowr2run says:

    When the police are notified twice about somebody ROBBING YOUR STORE & the owner gets there before they do, your suppose to let anybody & everybody JUST TAKE WHAT THEY WANT ? They want OUR GUNS, SAY THEY WILL PROTECT US LMAO. ROBBER GETS KILLED ROBBING STORE FROM OWNER ” GOOD SHOOT ” PERIOD, NO MATTER IF HE WAS ON THE PREMISES OR NOT AT THE TIME OF ROBBERY, THE COPS WERE NOTIFIED FIRST. If this store was owned by A COP, DO YOU THINK HE WOULD BE CHARGED ? HOW ABOUT A POLITICIAN, A JUDGE MAYBE ? BUT JOE BLOW CAN’T PROTECT ALL HE OWNS BECAUSE HE’S JOE BLOW. WE NEED MORE OF THIS THEN ROBBERS WILL NOT BE PROTECTED IN SOME F’ED UP WAY WHEN THEY ARE THE CRIMINALS.

  39. avatar whome says:

    I just wonder why the glass from the broken door is on the outside. Things that make you go hmmmm.

    1. If the “Air Pressure” was greater inside the store, it may have pushed the Glass Out! After all it was ~4:33 AM where the Outside Air would have been Cooler…

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email