The important message that should be brought home by this incident is practice practice practice. He fired six shots and only hits the guy once in the ass.

As we say in Arizona, "bueno".

Gas station/Doughnut store?

How come we never get ANYTHING good?!?!

Fleshy part of the thigh


/Obscure? Better not be

DAT ASS!!!

gaslight: There are some major veins and blood vessels in the buttocks. The Three Stooges aside, it's not a great place to get shot.

/Where is a good place?
//The small toe. That's about it.

You'll be the limpingnest ho in all of Harlem!

Hahahahahaha!! Got what he deserved.

in the buttocks

It all comes down to the sane state law:

Under his reading of state law, a store owner is allowed to pursue a thief and try to reclaim his property.

"The owner was under no obligation to remain in his store or to retreat," Roessler said.


Like I joked in another thread about Illinois. 'If a robber breaks into my house and injures himself, I'm legally obligated to help him remove what ever he wants and pay his hospital bills'.

He shot him as he was running. He was no longer in danger. That is not self defense, and he most definitely should be charged. He murdered someone over a petty robbery.

Jesus wants you to kill.

We had a couple burglars in my town get presented to the cops with their butts full of shotgun pellets.

No charges on the homeowner.

MBK: Ya know, I really have no problem with someone defending their home or place of business.

But...I always feel iffy when the homeowner or store owner runs outside and fires a gun wildly at the robber.

Especially if it is crowded area.

This

Give that guy a medal.
Also get him some firearm training.

Sure, it look like he chased him and gunned him down, but since there was a crime in action, he was just stopping the criminal.
He did. The perp died. Saved us all a whole lotta money.
Don't be robbing the stores ya'll.

mfsteve: As we say in Arizona, "bueno".


Mexcellent

MaesterFuzzy: He shot him as he was running. He was no longer in danger. That is not self defense, and he most definitely should be charged. He murdered someone over a petty robbery.

Kudos to him!!!

H&K .40? I'd say Mr Store Owner has good taste in firearms.

But he does need to practice a bit more.

/front sight, front sight, front sight

MBK: But...I always feel iffy when the homeowner or store owner runs outside and fires a gun wildly at the robber.

This.

MaesterFuzzy: He shot him as he was running. He was no longer in danger. That is not self defense, and he most definitely should be charged. He murdered someone over a petty robbery.

And this.

Once the robber exits the premises and is no longer a threat, it should be law enforcement's responsibility to stop him.

Castle doctrine should only apply as long as the perpetrator is in the castle.

Stoker: Sure, it look like he chased him and gunned him down, but since there was a crime in action, he was just stopping the criminal.
He did. The perp died. Saved us all a whole lotta money.
Don't be robbing the stores ya'll.

I must have missed the meeting where we decided vigilante justice and vigilante excessive force were legal.

If an officer had shot him, the officer would be on his way to a month of desk work or a paid vacation. So why isn't this guy on his way to jail? He killed someone!

lohphat: Who picked up the bill for the $$$ trauma center visit?

We all did.

Sure, the ambulance ride was probably a few grand, but here's the neat thing; when you sever the femoral arteries, it's like cutting the bottom off a 2 liter bottle of soda. It all comes rushing out. Your heart pumps and pushes the majority of your blood supply out in under a minute; after 40 seconds with an open flow, there's no chance you can be saved. The doctors probably spent about 35 seconds marking him as dead.

As far as the emergency room bill goes, it's as small as it could be, and likely much less than a trial and jail time would cost. A net win for the community!

Noah_Tall: The important message that should be brought home by this incident is practice practice practice. He fired six shots and only hits the guy once in the ass.

I know! It's ridiculous. But this is why a shotgun is better for self defense. The intimidation and the greater accuracy are just what you need.

lohphat: Who picked up the bill for the $$$ trauma center visit?

We all did.

Who paid for all the crimes the man likely committed, and many like him do every day? We all did. Who would have paid for his trial? We all would. Who would have paid for what would likely be a long incarceration? We all would. What's your point?

MaesterFuzzy: He shot him as he was running. He was no longer in danger.

You got it all wrong doc, he shot me in the ass!

Snapper Carr Quote 2011-07-10 03:56:50 PM
MBK: But...I always feel iffy when the homeowner or store owner runs outside and fires a gun wildly at the robber.

This.

MaesterFuzzy: He shot him as he was running. He was no longer in danger. That is not self defense, and he most definitely should be charged. He murdered someone over a petty robbery.

And this.

Once the robber exits the premises and is no longer a threat, it should be law enforcement's responsibility to stop him.

Castle doctrine should only apply as long as the perpetrator is in the castle.

Bullshiat. You have the cajones to rob someone with a weapon, you deal with the natural consequences.

Also, at 3:30 am I doubt the sidewalk outside was very crowed.

MaesterFuzzy: Stoker: Sure, it look like he chased him and gunned him down, but since there was a crime in action, he was just stopping the criminal.
He did. The perp died. Saved us all a whole lotta money.
Don't be robbing the stores ya'll.

I must have missed the meeting where we decided vigilante justice and vigilante excessive force were legal.

If an officer had shot him, the officer would be on his way to a month of desk work or a paid vacation. So why isn't this guy on his way to jail? He killed someone!

CAUSE HE SHOT A DIRTBAG STUPID! Duh!!

MaesterFuzzy: He shot him as he was running. He was no longer in danger. That is not self defense, and he most definitely should be charged. He murdered someone over a petty robbery.

It's a good deterrent, isn't it? Word will get out that you shouldn't f*ck with that convenience store & I bet their crime rate decreases. Also, no years of rehab/jail/repeats from another felon on our dime.

/And if it happens more, you'd lose half of that 'cruel & unusual' BS courts like to throw around. It wouldn't be unusual if people did it more often!

//Wins all around.

Store owner defended himself? Good.

Shot the thief? Still okay.

In the ass? Hilarious.

Died from it? Now, that's not cool.

Would have been a perfect story if the thief got prison time over it. Feels bad, man

Committing a crime is the easy part. Getting away with it is much harder.

If Mr. Criminal hadn't tried to rob the store, he'd still be alive. He picked on the wrong guy that night.

"He was totally in the right. His reaction was wholly appropriate," said Peter O'Neill, arguing there was no guarantee Angel was not going to return and shoot Ibrahimi.

"It is a shame he had to die, but he put himself in that position," O'Neill said.

Yep. That about covers it.

"But as Angel turned toward the door, Ibrahimi unzipped his black winter coat, pulled a .40 caliber Heckner & Koch semi-automatic from the holster on his hip and followed him outside."

Holy shiat batman.


gaslight: There are some major veins and blood vessels in the buttocks. The Three Stooges aside, it's not a great place to get shot.

/Where is a good place?
//The small toe. That's about it.

"The bullet tore through his right femoral artery before exiting the front of his thigh. He ran for several hundred feet before collapsing in an adjacent parking lot, leaving a trail of blood behind him."

Yeah, he was farked.
Surprised he even made it a hundred feet...

MaesterFuzzy: He shot him as he was running. He was no longer in danger. That is not self defense, and he most definitely should be charged. He murdered someone over a petty robbery.

And stopped future petty robberies that could have resulted in innocent people getting hurt.

Yay.

Snapper Carr:
Once the robber exits the premises and is no longer a threat, it should be law enforcement's responsibility to stop him

Good luck with that.

Bad guy's dead. One less scumbag in the world.

MaesterFuzzy: He shot him as he was running. He was no longer in danger. That is not self defense, and he most definitely should be charged. He murdered someone over a petty robbery.

Perhaps, had Mr. Angel not wished to die, he should have refrained from committing an act of armed robbery. Mr. Angel was not entitled to the property of Mr. Ibrahimi's store.

dweigert: MaesterFuzzy: He shot him as he was running. He was no longer in danger. That is not self defense, and he most definitely should be charged. He murdered someone over a petty robbery.

0/10 - the robber put his own life in jeopardy by committing the crime. He has no right to think he got away with it.

/liberal non gun owner

How did he put his life in jeopardy? The only, ONLY legally sound situations where someone robbing a gas station would get shot are if he gets shot in legitimate self defense as he was about to harm someone or shoot someone, by the cops.

He didn't use his gun. His life wasn't in jeopardy for one second. The police don't shoot random criminals without reason(well, they arent supposed to), he didn't use deadly force and so deadly force wouldn't be used against him (or shouldn't, from a legal standpoint) by the store owner. He didn't risk his life at all.

You may as well say anyone who gets shot at any time put their life in jeopardy, what with how they were doing nothing to warrant getting shot just like this guy (again, no, robbing a gas station is not a situation that warrants getting shot), and therefore deserved it and their killer should go free. It follows all the same logic you're using to decide that this guy put his life in jeopardy.

As well, if someone was loitering and got shot, your logic says you'd support their death.

If someone was jaywalking and got shot, same deal. They committed a crime! That put their life in jeopardy?

Someone decided to shoot him when they had no legal right to. If it's legal here, do you support random shootings being legal too? Your logic says you do, but something tells me you don't think that.

MaesterFuzzy: He shot him as he was running. He was no longer in danger. That is not self defense, and he most definitely should be charged. He murdered someone over a petty robbery.

Not if we accept his account - and there is no evidence to refute it, as TFA points out.
He may have been foolish to pursue an armed man into the night and place himself in a position to get shot, but having done so, he found himself in a position where his own life was quite probably in danger.
Foolish and impulsive does not equal malice aforethought. The only thing he could really be charged with is reckless endangerment, and since the only casualty was the armed instigator of the incident - what's the point?
I can see why the DA chose not to charge here.