Just Released 9-1-1 Recording May Shed Light on CCW Manslaughter Case

image via Ben Williamson

Alan Corder of Charlotte, North Carolina, is being charged with voluntary manslaughter after he recently shot and killed 20-year-old Justin Anderson, who had broken into his small garden supply store. Now, 9-1-1 recordings have been released that might help us understand what happened and why he’s being charged.

As we reported when this story first came out, the chronology of the incident is:

Alan Corder 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, Corder 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.

Watch the video below to hear the three corresponding 9-1-1 calls (we also transcribed them below).

Call #1: Alan Corder

CORDER: “I need police at my business. There’s somebody broke into my store.”

DISPATCHER: “What’s the name of the business?”

C.: “There’s somebody in there right now.”

DISPATCHER: “I understand. What’s the name of the business?”

C.: “American Beauty Garden Center.”

DISPATCHER: “Are you there?”

C.: “No, I’m on my way there.”

DISPATCHER: “It would be best for you to wait until the police get there, and not to approach the building until they get there to identify yourself.”

C.: “We’ll see what happens when I get there.”

DISPATCHER: “Are you armed? Do you have a weapon?”

C.: “I do have a weapon.”

Call #2: CPI Security Representative

A CPI security representative was also on the phone with a 9-1-1 operator at the same time, saying, “Looks like he’s looking around for something. Actually, he has a cart of stuff.”

A few moments later, the CPI caller said, “Somebody in a car just pulled up. Oh, it’s an officer. Looks like he has a weapon drawn… actually, I don’t know if that’s an officer.”

Call #3: Alan Corder

This call occurred five minutes after Corder’s first call.

DISPATCHER : “Is everything ok?”

CORDER: “He just ran out of the store, ran at me. I shot at him like three or four times. I think I may have hit him.”

DISPATCHER: “You shot at him?”

C.: “Yes, I did. I pulled up in front of the building, he came running out of the door straight at me.”

Moments after call #3, while Corder was still on the phone with the dispatcher, police arrived at the scene. What would you have done in this situation? Was this shooting justified?

comments

  1. avatar Brewski says:

    JSOP should clear that up.

    1. avatar ANONNYMOUS says:

      My direct answer to both of the ‘direct questions’ asked in this thread:
      1) What would you have done in this situation?
      Reply: Given I am safe at a remote location: start recording another copy of the incident, while both remaining within that safe location and on the phone with 911, –until the 911 dispatcher terminated the call.

      The owner was able to view the perps movement, if there were additional perps or concerns (at the scene), the owner/manager could have provided that information to 911 in real-time confirming what the security monitor was reporting to the other 911 dispatcher. The responding officers seldom, if at all, have that luxury of seeing what is going on before arrival.

      When you call 911, never hang-up the phone during an active emergency.

      2) Was this shooting justified?
      REPLY: The shooting, on its own merit *may* very well be justified. However, once you factor in –the owner/manager leaving a safe location, then traveling to/into a potential hostile, dangerous environment, then in my opinion ‘no’, not justified.

      Why not jump from a helicopter hovering at approx 3k’ onto a trampoline. Same thing with clearing a house/apt by yourself for known criminal activity; not a good option.

      The charges took longer than I expected, my original post/reply can be found at:
      http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2018/08/staff-writer/will-north-carolinas-stand-your-ground-law-protect-this-business-owner/

      Search the comments for –> ANONNYMOUS says: August 9, 2018 at 11:00

      This is the reason I read TTAG; food for serious thought. I hope the owner/manager survives this.

      1. avatar Eddie P says:

        The same mentality that believes I should retreat to the farthest room in the home and lock the door and give a criminal free reign in my home. I hear that policy works real good in the UK, for the criminals at least.

  2. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

    Play stupid games, win stupid prizes…

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      That is what the State is going to argue at the court hearing.

  3. avatar Mark N. says:

    I guess the police don’t believe that the perp was “running at” the owner, as opposed to merely running away, was apparently unarmed, and that therefore it was not justifiable self-defense. Close call that was entirely avoidable by the owner.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Show me the video. I don’t care what the cops, corporate media or lawyers say. Shoe me all the unedited video.

    2. avatar kevin says:

      Running “at” doesn’t matter- reasonable fear of bodily injury or death is what matters.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Kevin,

        We are not talking about a jogger running along a path in a park. We are talking about a criminal who just broke into a building, grabbed items to steal, and vacated the building.

        That criminal is NOT there to help the property owner. That criminal is there to harm the property owner. When such a criminal rushes the property owner, that criminal presents a credible, imminent threat of grievous bodily harm in my opinion. (Even if the criminal has no weapon, he could deliver a brutal tackle on the property owner.)

        1. avatar kevin says:

          “When such a criminal rushes the property owner, that criminal presents a credible, imminent threat of grievous bodily harm in my opinion.”

          You’re right. The property owner should have said that he was in fear for his life and was being attacked. Probably would have made all the difference.

        2. avatar Mark N. says:

          Y’all beg the question and jump to conclusions–was this miscreant rushing the property owner or rushing to get the heck away from Dodge? If he was running away and not attacking, then the owner has a problem, just as would any owner who tries to chase down a suspect and shoots him in the back. Further, voluntary manslaughter means that the shooter had an unreasonable fear for his life under the totality of the circumstances, so maybe he police know something we don’t–like all of the video files..

      2. avatar Kenneth says:

        My guess is the whole case will come down to whether the perp “running at” the owner turns out to be a true statement, or a lie made up by the owner, which would then obviously be cover for the owner’s very justified(but not legal) desire to kill the felon for robbing him.
        It should be easy to prove. An impartial(probably) security employee was watching the whole time. If the video/witness shows/says that the perp WAS running at the owner, likely acquittal. If not, likely guilty.
        It matters not whether the owner should have gone or not. No one can ever be required to make the best/most intelligent choices. Because: 1)it’s not possible, 2)all choices are relative, 3)every situation is different and unique, and 4)if they did, EVERYBODY would be guilty.

  4. avatar Jr says:

    “he came running out of the door straight at me.”
    Probably a smart thing to say to 911 on recording to help his defence later.

    “We’ll see what happens when I get there.”
    Not so much…

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      He didn’t know he would get there before the cops did. So he doesn’t exactly know what he is going to do when he arrives because the circumstance is anyone’s guess. It would have been very different if he said he was intending to kill… Plausible deniability.

      What we know is he called for help/backup for a likely felonious crime actively being perpetrated by a young man against his livelihood/property. He was armed for defensive measures of himself or property.

  5. avatar Isaac says:

    You win 100% of the gunfights you’re not in.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      “You miss 100% of the shots you don’t take.” –Wayne Gretzky

      “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

      And sometimes the fight comes to you whether you want it or not. I would not take on, nor proliferate, wholeheartedly the mindset of extreme passivity. Such a mindset is why people do not want armed school staff or armed citizens.

      Spend money on expensive running shoes or spend money on a gun? Spend money on armed government workers or spend money on your personal training?

      Being idle is to go the way of the dodo.

      1. avatar Kenneth says:

        Because the way of the dodo is so fitting for the idle unwashed. There’s such balance in nature….

  6. avatar AutoLode says:

    not a “robber” actually a burglar store owner should be charged in this case

    cops would have done the same shoot for free

    1. avatar Ing says:

      Why should the cops be able to do that and get away with it if the store owner can’t?

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        Because that is what a slave thinks.

        1. avatar Kenneth says:

          Not ALL slaves. Some slaves want to be free. Only the Statists, those who worship the feet of some anointed grand poobah or another, LOVE their servitude.
          That’s the point when I talk with people. I can understand why some like their slavery. Rights carry responsibilities. That frightens sheep, who would much prefer that their master feeds them, than have to make life decisions for themselves. Many prefer “the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom”, in the words of Samuel Adams.
          Like him, I can leave them to that decision, poor though it is. I desire nether their counsel nor their arms, and I, too, want them forgotten by history. But what I cannot fit into my head of the Statist’s attitude is why they all feel compelled to force ME into slavery also, just because they happen to like it…

    2. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      I don’t know about “should,” but I agree that a cop in the same situation would almost certainly be cleared.

      1. avatar kevin says:

        A cop would know what to say: “He ran at me and reached behind towards his waistband, I thought he was pulling a weapon and I was in fear for my life.”

        1. avatar CZJay says:

          It was very dark. There was broken glass everywhere, making it slippery. As I approached to see if the suspect had left, he charged me aggressively. I only had a split second to react. In extreme fear for my safety, with no time to assess if he was armed, I was forced by the suspect to shoot in order to keep myself safe from serious injury or death. I yelled at him to stop, but he kept coming at me in an extremely aggressive manner. It’s unfortunate he died, but he made the decision to charge me instead of giving up without violence.

  7. avatar Tom Edwards says:

    If the need to shoot a person it needs to be inside of the store or home. Out side is leaving it is not a threat anymore. Don’t make nickel worth difference if still on your property. Trespass does not count anymore. I have a large farm with a large fully equipped shop. I have almost every kind of equipment. Druggies heaven. Have been robbed several times. Nothing has ever happened to the Thief. But can’t shoot them because already outside shop. Called police and said was not a officer with in half hour. I had him at gun point. Called back saying I shot him. With in 3 minutes was a cop here. We were standing there waiting. The cop said You said you shot him. I said dispatch says no cops in half hour. He was less than a mile from my home doing book work. I got into trouble for false complaint! Thief off scott free! We are in wonderful world!

    1. avatar anonymoose says:

      Sounds like you should have just shot the thief.

      1. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

        That’s just a choppier version of an old urban legend.

  8. avatar CZJay says:

    I’m not mad.

    If the same thing happened to the cops, they would likely have shot him too. They wouldn’t have even got suspended without pay. Because it’s an armed citizen protecting his property, he must be sent to prison and his rights removed from him forever.

  9. avatar Grace12 says:

    Store owner convicted of voluntary manslaughter. Loses his business, loses his home, maybe his marriage and a whole lotta years off his life if he survives prison. All for a couple of bags of dirt.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      All for his property, his livelihood, justice and a more righteous country. #Perspective.

      Is a criminal’s life worth more than a sack of dirt? If you ask a Communist wannabe they would say, “of course!” What the crime was doesn’t matter to them. They think MS-13 are wonderful, divine, human beings.

      It’s not about the things he stole. It’s about the unlawful/sinful environment such people create. Today garden supplies, tomorrow a car, next week a mugging, years later a home invasion that leads to murder. Around and around it goes, where it stops, nobody knows! Why allow them to spin the wheel in the first place? We know where people end up when they get shot.

      1. avatar Sam in Ohio says:

        Let me know how righteous you feel when you’re playing where’s the soap in the prison shower with your cellie. If you want counter-quotes, “Better a guilty man goes free than an innocent man goes to jail.” or something like that from my criminal law class.

        1. avatar CZJay says:

          Funny you use a quote about the justice system and consider it unjust for oneself to protect life, liberty and property.

          Culture changes laws. Laws don’t change culture. If you want a shithole country, keep thinking it into existence. America will end up like Brazil — where the people are not allowed to protect and the cops blast on sight.

        2. avatar Jonathan Speegle says:

          If thats what they taught you in your law class and you think that is right, may God have mercy on your soul when the tables are turned.

      2. avatar Mark N. says:

        Sounds like pre-crime to me.

        1. avatar CZJay says:

          Shooting a person who is actively victimizing you, rather than allowing them to do so, stops them from victimizing others in the future or returning to victimize you again. That we know for a fact.

          Pre crime is caging someone who has yet to victimize someone by making their thoughts unlawful, which America does with “terroristic threat” laws.

          I’m not for arresting people before or killing them after. I am more for allowing people have choices at the time. In that way, criminals or future criminals have a lot of things to factor in their risk assessment.

      3. avatar Matt says:

        Part of the social contract that is “governments” is that they will enforce laws in an unbiased manner and do things like protect life and property. It wasn’t like the 911 dispatcher said “sorry sir, you are on your own”. He got there before police could. It doesn’t mean police wouldn’t have gotten there while the perp was still in there and successfully arrested him. Yes, I think you absolutely have a right to protect your property. You also have a responsibility though to do so in a manner respecting other people’s rights. And yeah, I think you have a right to life unless you’ve done something proportional to void that right. Stealing crap from someone does not rise to the level of making your life void. If it did, we’d have the death penalty for theft or burglary. We don’t. Nor is that the case in basically any second world or better country.

        I’d imagine based on the video evidence, the guy was running away when he was shot and/or a long distance from the store owner and attempting to flee the store. Also the 911 dispatcher told him not to go to his store. The owner placed himself in potential danger. I have a right to defend myself and my family within my house. Someone breaks in and I can absolutely shoot them. If someone broke in to my house and I know someone is in there and I know my family isn’t in there, I absolutely can’t shoot the person. I’ll probably be up on manslaughter charges if I go in there and he ends up dead.

        Manslaughter in most states means killing someone without malice aforethought. You didn’t intend to kill them, but you did in a way that wasn’t legal. IE if you knowingly place yourself in a position where you should know it is likely you might kill a person, it is manslaughter. Start pushing someone around, they deck you and you pull a gun on them and shoot them, that is manslaughter. Drive drunk and kill someone, that is manslaughter. Ignore 911 instructions not to approach the scene of an ongoing burglary and shoot a suspect he reasonably appears to be fleeing, manslaughter.

        Yes, it will cost him money, but short of an idiot, he has insurance. No, we shouldn’t have to rely on that. A-holes shouldn’t be breaking in to our stores, homes, garages, etc. and stealing our stuff. But no, that doesn’t mean we should be killing them unless they are presenting an imminent threat that we didn’t place ourselves in. He cost the dude money in an insurance claim or even with no insurance. For the couple of thousand dollars in losses he caused, the dude should absolutely lose his freedom for a couple of years (or longer) and pay restitution. He shouldn’t have been killed.

        Hell, even if the perp attacked the store owner I’d have a hard time swallowing no charges. Again, the store owner ignored 911 instructions to go to his store and to wait for police to arrive and clear it. He could driven near by and waited on the phone with 911 to tell him police had arrived and it was clear. Most states you have no right to defend your property with lethal force unless it is a home invasion while you are present or carjacking (or attempted arson).

  10. avatar Rusty Shackleford says:

    We would have to know NC state law. In my state of Texas you can use deadly force to stop a burglary or to stop some one running away from a burglary. See the Joe Horn case. The lesson here is justified or not don’t steal other peoples stuff, you have agood chance of ending up dead.

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

      “We would have to know NC state law.”

      …and the local DA’s opinion on armed self-defense.

      What I do know of North Carolina today is, the area known as the university “Research Triangle” is politically Leftist in bias. It’s an east coast version of Berkley in the west coast San Fran bay area.

      That could have a factor in how they choose to prosecute the store owner…

  11. avatar Shire-man says:

    Could have stayed home, opened a bag of chips and watched the cops arrest the thief as he got his insurance forms ready. He had to play tough guy and he’s going to suffer for it.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Fat and happy as American sit on the couch and do nothing. Allow their government to take care of them, including their grown men. Fat and happy… Yum.

      1. avatar Serpent_Vision says:

        Yes, get the government that he pays for with his taxes to do the job he pays them to. That’s not lazy free-loading; it’s expecting the service you pay for.

        1. avatar CZJay says:

          If you want a thing done well, do it yourself.

          Government:

          No government:

          Keep waiting on the government to help you… If they take too long, pay them some more.

    2. avatar Phil Wilson says:

      It’s what I would have done (let the cops handle it).

      1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

        Just wondering if you’ve ever busted your ass, worked 80 hours a week for many years to build a business and earn a living.

        It’s not about the stuff he tried to steal. It’s about the sacrifice it took for the business owner legally acquire that stuff.

        1. avatar Mark N. says:

          That’s what insurance is for.

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

          “That’s what insurance is for.”

          Mark, I’ll be very surprised if he insured the merchandise in his store. Most small business insure the building structure itself against loss, but not the contents. If the contents were to be insured, the insurance premiums are eye-watering expensive.

          The reason is the problem of insurance fraud. It’s too easy for a business in trouble to ‘arrange’ a robbery and take the payout.

          In this guy’s incident, I think it was stupid of him to head down there while the cops were responding. I understand *why* he did it, but I think it was stupid of him to do what he did, in the manner he did it…

        3. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          Regarding the health and continued viability of your business, what’s best:

          1) Lose some inventory and suffer some relatively minor damage (even assuming that isn’t covered by insurance)

          2) Arrive at the scene, the crook (or crooks; maybe he has an accomplice you haven’t spotted yet) gets the better of you. Pay hospital bills and be unable to run your business for a time while you recover (assuming you survive)

          3) Arrive at the scene, get the better of the crook (as happened here), pay horrendous court costs and spend a bunch of time defending yourself (even if there is no criminal prosecution, the family will quite often push a civil case).

          Granted, there could have been other outcomes. Regardless, I’m thinking option 1 is still far and away the best bet in this particular scenario. Now, if you are there while the crook breaks in, that’s a different set of calculations. I get the emotional tie to something you have built, but making decisions based on emotion will rarely produce an optimal outcome for you business.

  12. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

    Store owner is most likely in the wrong legally, but put me on the jury and he will walk. I shed no tears for thieves getting caught and shot dead, I’m sure it wasn’t the first rodeo for the perp. Happy ending when this scum can’t screw someone else out of their hard-earned property.

    Ignore the laws for a moment and think about it rationally. Do you want to be the next victim?

    1. avatar BlazinTheAmazin says:

      Agreed Cooter. I vote not guilty 7 days a week and twice on Sunday.

    2. avatar CZJay says:

      When I was a kid I learned through my environment: if you fuck with people, you’ll get fucked up. So don’t go messing with people or their stuff.

      Once the laws changed, and guns were frowned on by society, kids no longer live by that lesson. They just do whatever they want, whenever they want.

      1. avatar Adub says:

        Hey, they were just open carrying? That’s legal, right? Good old St. Louis…

        We feel tough carrying a pistol but hood rats have AKs and ARs in their cars and boldly open carry and discharge their firearms. I think I need to upgrade my trunk gun…

  13. avatar Ogre says:

    I agree that the shopowner should just have stayed home and watched the 911 incident play out on his video monitor after he called the cops, and recoup his losses via insurance. However, since he chose to respond to his business location and was unexpectedly confronted by the fleeing perp running at him, I wonder how he could have known that the perp was unarmed when he shot him. If he thought the perp was armed, he could have feared for his life, etc. Nevertheless, the way this whole scenario played out, I don’t think it’s going to go well for the businessowner/defendent once this goes to trial. The prosecutor will tear him a new one based on what he did.

    1. avatar Mater says:

      Ok you do understand insurance costs money and isn’t free… and might not even cover everything that was stolen i hate when people say that just wait for insurance the hell with that don’t steal won’t get shot….

      1. avatar CZJay says:

        Yet those same people will complain that Obama forced them to buy health insurance.

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

          “…complain that Obama forced them to buy health insurance.”

          Because it was *FORCED*, not optional.

          This is something those on the political Left can’t seem to wrap their heads around. It was *FORCED*.

          If the government can FORCE you to buy something against your will, they have ‘carte blanche’ to force you to buy anything else they determine to be “For your own good”. That’s a dangerous path to go down.

          Don’t even bother to bring up car insurance or registration. On my own property I am free to not have either. It’s a *choice* to drive on public roads…

    2. avatar John Hope says:

      your 100% correct. His phone conversation alone will get him convicted. Any sane and rational human being can listen to the phone calls and draw the conclusion that the owner wanted this to happen. He chose for the situation to play out like it did. He had plenty of time to think his actions through and take the dispatchers advice to not go there to escalate the situation. But he ignored her and took matters into his own hands. He cant even claim self defense, because this was clearly and “offensive shooter” situation. Meaning he was armed, gun drawn and ready to kill. Thats not self defense. At all. So if its not self defense, then by simply using the process of elimination, then the next right answer would be he either committed manslaughter or murder. And in my opinion it was murder. Im not taking the bad guys side. Hey, im as big of a 2nd amendment, we all should be able to own as many guns as we want, dont tread on me kind of guy there is. But this has nothing to do with any of that. Its about a guy who was looking for trouble and found it. Like i said, just by the phone conversation alone, this guy is toast.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        John Hope,

        But he ignored her [dispatchers advice] and took matters into his own hands.

        Protecting your own property yourself is honorable and NOT a crime!

        He cant even claim self defense, because this was clearly and “offensive shooter” situation. Meaning he was armed, gun drawn and ready to kill.

        No, he already had is firearm in hand to maximize his self-defense capabilities since he was addressing a VERIFIED CRIMINAL IN THE COMMISSION OF A FELONY.

        The only way this was not righteous self-defense is if the criminal was fleeing, with no visible firearm in hand, away from the property owner. Unfortunately, the source article does not provide enough detail to determine that.

      2. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

        Zimmerman was told by dispatch not to pursue Trayvon Martin. He did. And he got off. Just like this guy should.

        1. avatar Phil Wilson says:

          “Zimmerman was told by dispatch not to pursue Trayvon Martin.

          True

          “He did.”

          Unclear. Certainly not proven.

        2. avatar tdiinva says:

          False. He turned around and was attacked while returning to his truck

  14. avatar Colt Magnum says:

    The trial will determine if he was justified or not. That said, one of the hazards of a career in crime is the victim seeking retribution outside of the law. I have no sympathy for the criminal. May his family take solace in the fact that he died doing what he loved.

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      “May his family take solace in the fact that he died doing what he loved.”

    2. avatar Jeff in Colorado says:

      I love your phrase “May his family take solace in the fact that he died doing what he loved.” I am going to use it.

  15. avatar Mater says:

    Should’ve shot the guy again piss on getting your stuff stole by a piece of s$%t..

  16. avatar Big Bubba says:

    Inside or outside, if I confront a “perp” and he comes toward me, I perceive that as a threat and will react accordingly.
    If he is just stupidly trying to leave the way he came in … well, “stupid is as stupid does”!
    ….but then, burglars aren’t known to be Rhodes Scholars or Mensa candidates.

  17. avatar Michael says:

    He should have ordered a pizza to be delivered to his store. It would have gotten there before both he and the law got there. The driver would have frightened off the would be criminal and the store owner could have shared the pizza with the officers when they arrived. No harm, no foul, no $ for lawyers. Satisfactory, no. Practical, hell yes. The best victories are the ones where all the good guys stand around eating pizza. 30

  18. avatar Achmed says:

    Moron

  19. avatar Inigo Carmine says:

    I’ll hold back judgement on the shooting itself, since I don’t know the circumstances at the time the trigger was pulled.
    As for him showing up at the store, I don’t understand people’s animosity at his decision to do so. “Insurance” helps mitigate some of the direct cost of a loss; it doesnt make everything all better. The attitude of “sit on your hands and let big daddy government sort everything out” is one frought with peril; that’s how you get full-up passenger planes slammed into skyscrapers with little-to-no resistance, and the “don’t fight back against your rapist” ideology.

    1. avatar Jeff in Colorado says:

      My “animosity” at his decision to go to the store and confront the robber is because he easy put himself in a worse position than if he let the police handle it. I understand the desire to defend your business and your livelihood. I have owed a business myself and worked 7 days a week for months on end. And insurance does not make you whole. There is a deductible and you can bet your rates are going to go up.

      The reason I think he should not have confronted the robber is because of what just happened. He is getting charged with manslaughter. He legal fees could destroy him and his business. I think he should be able to confront a robber, and I shed no tears for what happened to the robber. But this is today’s world and you have to treat it the way it is, not the way you want it to be.

  20. avatar 2A says:

    a lot of comments from Non business owners, This is His livelihood, damn right he should try to protect it. Business owners don’t get to go on Workers Comp,or Unemployment benefits when shit happens .

  21. avatar 0351 says:

    Property costs money, money costs time, and we have a limited of time in life. My time is my life. Therefore, to willfully deprive someone of their property is to knowingly steal someone else’s life with the intent to enrich their own. That’s sounds a bit like murder. Not quite, but pretty damned close. I fail to see the problem with his actions.

  22. avatar Ralph says:

    So the owner of a garden store shot a dirt bag stealing dirt bags. And now the dirt bag is resting in dirt. How ironic.

    Maybe the late burglar was just turning his life around and trying to start a family of dirt bags. Or maybe he came from one.

  23. avatar HoundDogDave says:

    “Somebody in a car just pulled up. Oh, it’s an officer. Looks like he has a weapon drawn… actually, I don’t know if that’s an officer.”

    Hard to argue you needed to draw your gun in self-defense if you already have the gun in your hand. If you are in a public space you don’t get to draw your gun in anticipation of a threat to your person, you have to actually be under threat. Without the second caller, it could have been difficult to build a case against the shop owner. With it, however, it’s a slam dunk for the State. If you are standing in front of the only exit with a gun in your hand, anyone trying to run away to escape is going to be going in your direction. Also, I’m relatively sure there is video evidence from his security cameras.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Cops intentionally stand in front of cars so they can shoot and be justified. All the driver has to do is rev the engine.

    2. avatar John Hope says:

      Exactly.

  24. avatar John Hope says:

    So why is this not a 1st Degree murder charge?

    Because it should be.

    Its pretty obvious he went there with the intention of shooting and killing this kid. It was premeditated 100%. He had ample time to decide how to handle it. And he decided to go there, confront the kid, with gun drawn to shoot and kill him. Plain and simple. This has nothing to do with our 2nd Amendment rights or some good guy killing a bad guy with a gun. It has to do with someone escalating a situation to a level that could have been prevented. “We will see what happens when i get there”……not gonna bold well for him in court. His phone conversation alone is enough to charge him with murder, fuck manslaughter. He knew exactly what he was going to do when he was on the way to the store. That’s premeditated. In fact, thats the exact definition of what premeditation is (to think out or plan before hand). So by the definition of the law, he’s 100% guilty. He ran at me. Bullshit. You pulled up, got out of your vehicle, gun drawn, went looking for him and found and killed him. this guy is a piece of shit. He was probably waiting his entire life for this chance.

    This has nothing with the second amendment rights or using self defense. So anyone using that as some sort of reasoning, well then maybe you need to get checked for a mental illness. Because that is not what this is about, AT ALL. Its about some guy, who had plenty of time to think out what to do, was told directly by police to not escalate the situation, but he ignored them. He CHOSE what to do. And again, thats premeditated and he should be charged with murder in the 1st degree. Not every single person who shoots a “bad guy” is a hero. Again, this could have been completely avoided.

    100% guilty, not of manslaughter, but murder.

    1. avatar CZJay says:

      Put a badge on his chest — everything would have been a-okay.

      1. avatar John Hope says:

        Cant argue that…

        Problem is, he doesnt have a badge…

    2. avatar James M. says:

      No, it’s not murder. Holding a gun when you confront a criminal does not indicate that you plan to shoot him. It merely indicates that you think he is a potential threat. Most reasonable criminals aren’t dumb enough to rush a man obviously holding a gun.

      1. avatar John Hope says:

        And you literally just buried the guy with your statement of “Most reasonable criminals aren’t dumb enough to rush a man obviously holding a gun” literally defends the victim here. We know he was holding a gun and it was drawn. The guy in the other phone conversation stated he had his gun drawn. He was ready to kill. Period. You dont pull a trigger unless your intent is to kill. Its actually a pretty well known gun “rule”. You dont pull out your gun unless your ready to kill. And he was. In fact he went head first into the situation. Again, all by choice. He had a choice to let the police arrive or go in and take the law into his own hands. He chose the latter. And again, by definition of the law, that makes him guilty. This was not a self defense situation. So it could only be manslaughter or murder at this point. Any self defense argument is gone. Honestly the owner’s BIGGEST mistake was telling the dispatcher that he was going to his store, with a gun and then telling them “we will see what happens”. What a moron. He would have had a far easier time defending himself in court without the phone call to 911 and the things he said in that call. Ironic that in the end, thats what probably will get him convicted.

        1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

          “You don’t pull your gun unless you’re ready to kill”. LMAO. You must be a new gun owner or you’re a pretender. Anyone with any real firearms experience will tell you they NEVER have the intention to kill. The only intention is to “stop the threat”. There’s a huge, legal difference.

    3. avatar Jeff in Colorado says:

      No, I don’t think murder and premeditation applies here. As I understand it, as a google “laywer” ( which every commented here is, and none are really qualified ), this would be heat of passion and falls under voluntary manslaughter. Premeditated murder would be if it was planned out and well thought out. He did not plan to shoot the guy. He reacted from anger as he was being robbed. Just my two cents. Spend as you may.

      1. avatar John hope says:

        Didnt plan on shooting him? Seriously? Wow. Yea he just planned to go there and have a conversation with the perp. Ummmm….no. he went there to confront and take matters into his own hands. Hes guilty. The guy is a moron. Like I stated, his own words in his phone conversations to 911 is what will seal his fate. His biggest mistake was calling them before he got to the store. No way this guy gets off. He had a choice.

    4. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      John Hope, you’ve been spending too much time on the “Mom Demanding…” web site.

      Having a gun in your hand means you’re prepared to stop a deadly threat, nothing more. It’s possible the dude was itching to shoot the burglar but the evidence doesn’t suggest that.

      Quit pretending to know the law. You have not a clue.

      1. avatar Kenneth says:

        More likely he’s a plant, posting here only because he’s a paid shill.
        Adults who live in their parents basement have to get money for drugs somehow. Perhaps he doesn’t have the cajones to steal it, so he goes on bloomberg’s payroll. From his point of view, he gets paid to surf the net from the comfort of his free room and board… what’s not to like? All it costs him is a little ridicule from those of us who still possess a functional brain, but what does he care? He hates us anyway, because he hates everything, including himself. Plus…brain cell envy.

    5. avatar Mater says:

      So he premeditated the guy breaking into his store and stealing his stuff… ha ha ha ha oh man thats good…

  25. avatar Phil Twiss says:

    Burglary is not Robbery and neither carries a death sentience … He was not in the store at the time of the break in… He call the police, raced over from his home and went hunting. He put himself in harms way, took a life and ended the rest of his life for property. This is not Ferguson, Baltimore, any other BLM / Antifa / Socialist riot… This was a rule of law situation with the police on the way for a property crime. He had the right to drive over and wait for the police to show up and be the best witness to the crime committed by a career criminal. Period…

    1. avatar Kenneth says:

      “Death sentience”[sic] is not, in any way applicable here. Even you and John Hope, in your reason challenged world, have to understand the difference between an execution(a death SENTANCE, not just a death, period) and a homicide, justified or not…. don’t you?

  26. avatar Docduracoat says:

    This is where concealed carry insurance comes in awfully handy!
    Mine is with United States concealed carry association
    It’s only a couple hundred dollars a year and it covers you from getting a lawyer all the way to trial.
    Pays for expert witnesses as well

  27. avatar former water walker says:

    I have no problem with the business owner shooting the punk BUT he won’t escape unscathed. And yes I have a business(such as it is). Pretty difficult to imagine shooting a thief in the back with impunity…

  28. avatar Icabod says:

    The is a reason to never talk to the police. Whatever you say to them will come back to haunt you.

    https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mvkgnp/law-professor-police-interrogation-law-constitution-survival

  29. avatar Tt78 says:

    He wasn’t at the property so he put himself in danger my showing up and thus loses the castle doctrine protection. Unfortunately, we no longer have the right to protect our property.

  30. avatar George from Alaska says:

    This is one of those situations that just does not end well for the shop owner who is losing money and now maybe will spend time in jail. He was probably very angry, but also very wrong for getting close enough to confront the guy. He was the one who made the decision to go when the police were supposedly on their way. He said stupid things and was recorded “We will see”, “I shot a few times while he was running away”.. I’m truly sorry for his business and his property loss but you just can’t shoot someone in the back and tell the police on record that that is what you did over a cart full of stuff. I lost thousands of dollars of guns and camping gear. It wasn’t insured but I did take a casualty/loss on my taxes and paid almost no income tax that year… yes, you can do that even if you don’t have insurance and you will get dollar for dollar back in a refund on your federal taxes and it can carry over year after year until you are made good. You can also buy Herculite almost unbreakable glass like substance and write it off as a business expense. Years ago some kids up here stole a giant plastic illuminated chicken from the top of a long standing business. The owner saw them running and randomly fired shots at them when they were 40+ yards away in the dark. He hit and killed a 17 year old boy and, to make a long story short, went to jail for it.

  31. avatar Aaron says:

    not enough info available to determine if the shooting was righteous.

    HOWEVER, I can tell you what I would have done: NOT driven down to the store. that’s what cops and insurance are for.

    if i was already IN the store when the perp broke in, then that’s a justifiable reason to shoot the perp. but to drive to the store in the midst of a burglary seems to me to be unnecessarily risky in several ways, physically, criminally, and financially. if there was no police and no insurance, then yeah, ya gotta take risks to protect your livelihood. but that’s not the case.

  32. avatar Hannibal says:

    Dumbass.

    You’d think after George Zimmerman people would pause and think “maybe this isn’t worth me being killed or ending in front of a court for manslaughter” but here we are. Zimmerman was found not guilty, but he’s not exactly in a good place today.

    If you’re robbed, it’s one thing. But this guy took a burglary and inserted himself into it, after being warned not to. Does he have a justifiable affirmative defense? Maybe! But affirmative defenses get tested at trial. Bet it’s gonna be a lot more expensive than a couple hundred dollars worth of merchandise that the guy probably wouldn’t have gotten away with anyway.

  33. avatar karlb says:

    If I read this correctly, there are two ways this could have happened: either the criminal had a cart full of stuff when he left the store since he would have had to have opened the door to get the car out, or he left the merchandise he was going to steal in the store. If the first is true, then it is going to be hard to make the claim that he was a real threat. If the would-be thief left everything in the store on the cart, our arguments about the store owner protecting his property are pretty shaky.

    I am not sad that this person met his end because he chose to break the law; though, I do think the store owner is in serious legal jeopardy.

  34. avatar tdiinva says:

    I see the usual chest thumpers are out thumping their chests. I will let the Jury decide his guilt or innocence but I know one thing, Corder is a moron. Rushing to the sceen of tne crime is most likely going to to end badly. He can get shot by the perp(s). The cops might show up at just the wrong time and see him waving a gun around with the predictable result of him getting shot or he will get charged where he loses no matter what the outcome. There is only one situation where I would rush to defend my property and that is if my guns are at risk. Anyone stealing guns will be selling them to someone who will commit murder. I will risk a bad outcome to prevent that. Other than that I will let the police handle it.

  35. avatar Jasper says:

    A lot of people making remarks about “a couple of bags of dirt”. The thief wasn’t stealing dirt. He was stealing the nutrients and equipment for growing cannabis. That stuff is expensive and has an easy resale factor. American Beauty Garden Center is one of the leading organic and hydroponic growing stores in the Charlotte area.
    I’m surprised it hadn’t been robbed before, maybe it had been and the owner was tired of being ripped off?

  36. avatar James M. says:

    I just sympathize with the guy’s choice to go to the scene (unwise as that decision was). After a business puts in a few claims for break-ins, their insurance is going to quit covering them. Stores have been put out of business because they couldn’t get insurance in high crime areas.

    Also, police may or may not respond in a timely manner. I remember the tenth time that I called the police because someone had broken into my car. The police arrived promptly (to my absolute shock), then proceeded to berate me for contaminating the crime scene. I asked why, since the police had never shown up before. The officer explained that a local store employee had been assaulted by a perp with a crowbar in the same parking lot. The employee had inadvertently interrupted the thief as he was stealing a car radio and had ended up crippled for life.

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