Page 1 of 1
Elderly clerk in liquor store kills assailant
Posted: 2003-11-09 02:05pm
by Glocksman
Courier & Press story
By JOE ATKINSON Courier & Press staff writer 464-7450 or
atkinson@evansville.net
November 9, 2003
A Tell City, Ind., man died early Friday morning after attempting to rob an Evansville convenience store.
Police said Charles Dale, 31, walked into Kwik Stop Liquor, 932 W. Columbia St., and started "beating on" an elderly female clerk. As he assaulted her, he allegedly demanded money from the register.
"In defense, she fired a gun that she had on her," said Evansville Police Detective Kevin Mason. "He was hit more than once, (and) she was hit once - she thinks she shot herself, (because) she was trying to fend him off, and he was still beating on her when she was trying to shoot him."
The woman, whose name was not released, had a permit to carry the gun, Mason said.
After the shooting, Dale fled the store with some cash and two bottles of liquor. A passer-by saw him leaving, and went into the store to check on the clerk. When he found her bleeding on the floor, he called 911.
The clerk was taken to St. Mary's Medical Center, where she remained in serious condition Saturday.
Along with the gunshot wound, she had several bruises from the assault, Mason said.
"He was a pretty good-sized guy - about 6-feet, 1-inch and 240 (pounds)," Mason said. "And, here, she's 60-something years old and not real big - he did a number on her."
Meanwhile, Officer Keith Smith and his K-9 partner, Kolja, were called to track the suspect. They followed his track out behind the store, where he lay in the alley with the stolen cash and liquor spread out around him.
"An ambulance was called," Mason said, "and they transported him to Deaconess (Hospital), where he was pronounced dead."
Police said the investigation is continuing, and a case file likely will be sent to Prosecutor Stan Levco.
He then will decide whether to pursue any charges in the shooting.
I doubt if Levco will file charges. After all, he wants to be reelected and prosecuting an old woman in this situation would cost many votes in this area.
Hopefully she'll be recover.
In the meantime, that's one less scumbag to worry about beating up on old women.
Posted: 2003-11-09 02:17pm
by Montcalm
The fucker got what he deserves,and they should not waste time calling an ambulance every time a bum is wounded or killed,garbage truck would be a better choice.
Posted: 2003-11-09 03:30pm
by EmperorChrostas the Cruel
Now now, Montcalm, an ambulance is needed here, as long as he's warm. If if he dies on the spot, he can't roll over on his buddies in exchange for morphine!
As to the garbage truck, no way! I want autopsy photos! Blood must be taken for DNA. The body desecrated!
I am posative the presense of a gun truncated this beating.He would have killed of crippled that old woman. Others will see it that way as well. Prospective jurors.
No DA in his right mind will prosecute this case. Given the size disparity, and the beating preceeded the shooting, this couldn't be a winner. A fund would be started for her defence/bail. Somene like F. Lee Baily, or Shappiro, or Cochran would defend this case pro bono, and sue the fuck out of the other side. Suits like those take hundreds of thousands of dollars just to get to the "case dismissed this is frivolous" part. This would cost the city millions for the privilage of being "the asshole who was out to get the poor little old lady mugged by the huge guy."
Money no one will spend.
Hell, the mayor might give her an award for bravery.
Posted: 2003-11-09 04:01pm
by Glocksman
Forwarding the casefile to the prosecutor is automatic in any case and doesn't imply guilt.
From the quotes made by the investigating detective, I seriously doubt any charges will be filed against this woman.
After all this is Southern Indiana, not the UK.
Posted: 2003-11-09 05:07pm
by Gandalf
Heh, that's pretty cool.
I'm picturing sort of Clint Eastwood thing; "Do you feel lucky, punk?"
Posted: 2003-11-09 08:21pm
by Jadeite
The guy was from Tell City? I'm from that town. Anyway, good riddance.
Posted: 2003-11-10 12:29am
by Vertigo1
Another piece of scum bites the dust...
Posted: 2003-11-10 07:12am
by Sarevok
That is something that does not happen everyday. Good to see people fight back crime on it's own terms.
Posted: 2003-11-10 07:19am
by Setzer
Jadeite wrote:The guy was from Tell City? I'm from that town. Anyway, good riddance.
It seemed to me to be more like:
(little old lady voice) Don't fuck with me, sunny boy! BANG! BANG! BANG!
Your funeral punk.
Thank you, legalized firearms.
Posted: 2003-11-10 07:44am
by InnerBrat
Glocksman wrote:After all this is Southern Indiana, not the UK.
Wait a sec - are you comparing this - a 60 year old woman using a licenced weapon in self defence while being beaten to a bloody pulp - to Tony Martin - a known paranoid schizophrneic using an unlicenced gun to fire an unarmed 15 year old burglar in the back of the head as he was running away?
Posted: 2003-11-10 08:00am
by Bill Door
InnerBrat wrote:Glocksman wrote:After all this is Southern Indiana, not the UK.
Wait a sec - are you comparing this - a 60 year old woman using a licenced weapon in self defence while being beaten to a bloody pulp - to Tony Martin - a known paranoid schizophrneic using an unlicenced gun to fire an unarmed 15 year old burglar in the back of the head as he was running away?
You missed the 'fire repeatedly at' from the Tony Martin part.
Posted: 2003-11-10 08:07am
by InnerBrat
Bill Door wrote:You missed the 'fire repeatedly at' from the Tony Martin part.
oops, sorry
Posted: 2003-11-10 10:05am
by MKSheppard
InnerBrat wrote:Wait a sec - are you comparing this - a 60 year old woman using a licenced weapon in self defence
Anything short of a machine gun is legal in America as long as you
keep it behind the counter in most states.
Tony Martin - a known paranoid schizophrneic using an unlicenced gun to fire an unarmed 15 year old burglar in the back of the head as he was running away?
Reposession men have been shot in the back of the head in Texas as
they drive off with people's cars, and the people have been acquitted.
Posted: 2003-11-10 12:43pm
by Companion Cube
Well, good riddance. I just hope the poor woman doesn't feel any guilt for what she did, she had every right to defend herself.
Posted: 2003-11-10 01:36pm
by Glocksman
InnerBrat wrote:Glocksman wrote:After all this is Southern Indiana, not the UK.
Wait a sec - are you comparing this - a 60 year old woman using a licenced weapon in self defence while being beaten to a bloody pulp - to Tony Martin - a known paranoid schizophrneic using an unlicenced gun to fire an unarmed 15 year old burglar in the back of the head as he was running away?
Actually I had Eric Butler on the subway in mind, but if this
EDP Storyboard is correct, Martin would have been legally justified in shooting those two in most US states.
As an aside, her
weapon wasn't licensed.
We don't have to have a license to own a handgun here in Indiana. The license was to carry a handgun concealed in public. The ironic thing is that since she was on private property (her place of employment), she didn't even need a permit to carry that gun while she was at work. The shooting would have been just as legal even if she had no permit.
320,000 people out of the 6.1 million people in Indiana have CCW licenses. That means out of a group of 20 average Hoosiers (what we're called here in Indiana), at least one person is licensed to carry a concealed handgun.
The only requirements needed for an Indiana CCW are that you be over 18 and not have any felony or violent misdemeanor convictions, not be addicted to drugs or an alcoholic, and not be mentally ill. If you meet the above requirements, the police by law are required to issue you a CCW that is good for four years and costs only $25.
Posted: 2003-11-10 01:49pm
by Glocksman
Bill Door wrote:You missed the 'fire repeatedly at' from the Tony Martin part.
In all of the self-defense materials that I've ever read, the advice given is to 'keep shooting until the assailant ceases to be a threat'. In other words, keep shooting until they fall.
A few years ago, a cop in Georgia (our Georgia, not the one overseas) was being investigated for using execssive force when he shot a guy 16 times in self-defense. It came out in the investigation that policemen were taught to keep shooting until the suspect falls and ceases to be a threat.
The cop turned out to be a champion defensive pistol competitor who was able to empty his 16 shot magazine in under a second and a half into a target the size of your fist at 15 meters.
Needless to say the charges were not filed.
Posted: 2003-11-10 01:51pm
by 2000AD
Posted: 2003-11-10 03:32pm
by Bill Door
So firing at a person back, when they are standing still is self-defence? And continuing to shoot as they run away is self defence? Even if you have to move towards them to continue firing?
This document suggests that as a possible situation.
Another being Tony Martin
deliberatly ambushed the burglers. Still self defence?
This is clearly different to the situation you brought up, as the people being shot in the Tony Martin incedent were not assailants (As they were not looking to attack Tony Martin).
In your example it is clearly a case of self-defence, so I would argue that the actions were fully justified. The assailant could easily win a Darwin Award!
Posted: 2003-11-10 03:51pm
by Glocksman
What we are dealing with is the differences between US and UK law regarding defense of self and defense of dwelling.
The laws of my state are pretty unambigious on the right to use lethal force to defend one's dwelling.
IC 35-41-3-2
Use of force to protect person or property
Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in using deadly force only if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
(b) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling or curtilage.
(c) With respect to property other than a dwelling or curtilage, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person is not justified in using deadly force unless that force is justified under subsection (a).
(d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
(1) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and
(B) until the aircraft takes off;
(2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
(3) on the ground in Indiana:
(A) after the aircraft lands; and
(B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
(e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
(2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
(f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
(1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
(2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
(3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.
As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.8; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.1; P.L.59-2002, SEC.1.
In other words, if I have a reasonable (this is important) belief that shooting a burglar is necessary to protect my home, I am legally permitted to use that force.
The key word is 'reasonable'. It would be unreasonable for me to knowingly shoot an eight year old who wandered in the wrong house after school.
Shooting a burglar is considered reasonable in this state. In fact the county prosecutor has said flat out that he wouldn't even try to prosecute anyone who shot an intruder in their home.
Colorado's law is even better:
1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes. (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant. (3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force. (4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
In Indiana or Colorado Tony Martin wouldn't have been charged with, much less convicted of, any crime.
Posted: 2003-11-11 08:20pm
by GREAHSIAM
Never piss-off a Grandmother.
Posted: 2003-11-12 05:25am
by InnerBrat
Glocksman wrote:In other words, if I have a reasonable (this is important) belief that shooting a burglar is necessary to protect my home, I am legally permitted to use that force.
But is 'I have a history of diagnosed mental problems including paranoia' grounds for a reasonable belief that an unarmed 15 year old running away needs to be shot in the back of the head?
Posted: 2003-11-12 05:53am
by Darth Fanboy
InnerBrat wrote:
But is 'I have a history of diagnosed mental problems including paranoia' grounds for a reasonable belief that an unarmed 15 year old running away needs to be shot in the back of the head?
INSERT TEXAS JOKE HERE.
Posted: 2003-11-13 04:51pm
by Andras
InnerBrat wrote:Glocksman wrote:In other words, if I have a reasonable (this is important) belief that shooting a burglar is necessary to protect my home, I am legally permitted to use that force.
But is 'I have a history of diagnosed mental problems including paranoia' grounds for a reasonable belief that an unarmed 15 year old running away needs to be shot in the back of the head?
His history of mental illness would most likely preclude him from legally owning a weapon (in the US) It's on the Idiot checklist. (If you answer yes to any of these questions while trying to purchase a weapon, you're an idiot)
Posted: 2003-11-14 02:47am
by Glocksman
But is 'I have a history of diagnosed mental problems including paranoia' grounds for a reasonable belief that an unarmed 15 year old running away needs to be shot in the back of the head?
Colorado's law would have precluded homicide charges from being filed period.
In states with so-called 'make my day' laws, it's literally open season on burglars and there's no bag limit.
That's not saying that he wouldn't be prosecuted for firearms law violations
if he was a certifiable mental case who was prohibited under law from owning firearms, but a homicide charge couldn't be filed.
Indiana's law isn't quite so specific as Colorado's, but it grants protections as well.
In the specific case of Tony Martin, the 'reasonableness' of shooting that 15 year old in the back hinges on one thing.
Was it dark in the house?
If the room was lit and Martin could see the burglar clearly fleeing, perhaps he should have been charged with a crime lesser than murder such as voluntary manslaughter (or the UK equivalent).
If the room was dark (all of the reports I've read say the only light was the flashlight that the burglars had) and Martin couldn't clearly see the burglar fleeing, then he deserves the benefit of the doubt that the law in Colorado and Indiana would give him when making the decision to use deadly force to defend his home.
Going by that EDP storyboard, in Colorado, Indiana, or most other US states, Martin wouldn't have been charged with anything.
In any case, I'm not too concerned about a burglar with a record as long as my arm getting shot to death while committing what turned out to be his final crime.