DA Declines to Charge Clerk

Did the DA get it right?

A 23-year-old clerk involved in a shootout during an attempted robbery of his family’s store last weekend will not face any charges, after the Milwaukee County district attorney’s office found he acted in self-defense.

The man, convicted of a felony drug charge in 2004, met with prosecutors Friday after Milwaukee police asked that the district attorney’s office review the shootout, which was captured on surveillance video that was widely seen after police gave it to news media and posted it on YouTube.

Milwaukee police said a man entered Villard Food & Liquor, 5123 W. Villard Ave, about 2 p.m. Sunday in an attempted robbery at the store but was confronted by the armed clerk, who asked him to leave. While the man was leaving, however, he shot five times into the office area of the store, and the clerk returned fire. A woman who appears in the video to be exiting the store in the crossfire was unharmed.

[...]

Deputy District Attorney Kent Lovern said that although the gun was in the store, it was not in the possession of the clerk at the time the threat posed by the gunman emerged.

I think so.  The clerk used an available weapon to defend his life.  He was not in possession of the pistol until he was confronted with the danger.  Just because he is a felon does not mean that he has forfeited his right to defend his life. 

1. I agree 100%

   On a side note… I thought the most shocking part of the video was how the lady in the green coat in the video just casually walked out. 

   I’d be hillary-ing (duck n cover) my way out of there.  Its almost as if the lady in the video is just not all that phased by gun fights.  I suppose in her neighborhood she may be accustom to it.

   And one last comment. I think you raise an interesting point regarding the fact that the felon has a right to defind his life.

   I of course agree 100%.  And to be honest, when you think about the law against felons owning/possessing guns.  Isn’t that unfair?  Doesn’t a felon face the same risk of being a victim of a violent crime as the rest of the population?

   But yet we tell them they can’t own or posess a firearm.  Doesn’t a felon risk their home being broken into?  Even states which allow concealled carry (which is damn near every state but WI) don’t allow felons to own or posess weapons.  I think that’s unfair. I think if you want to ‘brand’ someone a criminal, and make them feel that they are a criminal, treat them like a second class citizen who doesn’t have the rights of other citizens.  You’re going to pretty much guarantee that they will feel disenfranchised and will be unlikely to assimilate into the non-criminal side of society.

   I think we need to come down harder on criminals for crimes they commit.

   Do we really need to be able to throw a felon back in jail just for carrying a weapon?  If they aren’t committing crime with it, then they aren’t doing anything that morally I think is wrong.

   If they do commit a crime, do we need the fact that they had a weapon to charge them?  No… If they rob a place with a gun, throw the book at them for robbery. 

   Its better to punish criminal acts than treat a felon like a second class citizen for doing something that everyone else can do legally.

   Posted by on April 19, 2008 at 0923 hrs




2. Of course he got it right. Frankly it goes to show that allowing people to have guns - does reduce crime… which has been proven in every state that has enacted conceal/carry

   Posted by on April 19, 2008 at 1043 hrs




3. My only criticism of the clerk is…

   He’s got BAD aim!

   Posted by on April 19, 2008 at 1350 hrs