Waukegan clerk fatally shoots robber, may face charges

[julia]

Is being robbed at gunpoint a proper method of payment for goods & services at at store? Had the young man stayed at home & not gone out to rob a store he'd still be alive. But, he made a choice. He paid dearly for that choice.

[Guest]

So you think a death sentence is appropriate for a previous record of burglary and vandalism?

"...death sentence..." More than likely it would have happened later. The kid took his own road of life, that life turned out to be short.
.
I know this sounds negative and sarcastic but there's ONE less burden on society. The kid played street games, he got street justice. He learned nothing as to why he was in jail, our society does not want these people in it.
.
I work hard for my money and personal items, I would like to keep them, as did the clerk.
.
I DO NOT feel for the kid. :|
.

[guest300]

So you think a death sentence is appropriate for a previous record of burglary and vandalism?

"...death sentence..." More than likely it would have happened later. The kid took his own road of life, that life turned out to be short.
.
I know this sounds negative and sarcastic but there's ONE less burden on society. The kid played street games, he got street justice. He learned nothing as to why he was in jail, our society does not want these people in it.
.
I work hard for my money and personal items, I would like to keep them, as did the clerk.
.
I DO NOT feel for the kid. :|
.

And the clerk will most likely serve time for what he did, along with having to defend a wrongful death suit brought against him by the family of the robber. I'm sure the store owner will also be dragged into the lawsuit and sued, which will jeapordize the future of the store. Needless to say, a previously law-abiding man(the clerk) and his families lives will now be in chaos for taking justice into his own hands. The alternative; the clerk could have called 911, provided a description of the offender and direction he traveled and allowed the police to do their job and apprehend the guy. He was a repeat offender known to the police, he most likely would have been caught.

[Blackdiamond]

I like the alternative. I sympathize on both sides.

[wths74]

As much as I sympathize with the clerk it was wrong to follow him out and shoot 3 at him. He is probably guilty of something but I hope his sentence will be light.

What it comes down to is intent. What the clerk should have said was that he was going out to stop the perp from getting away and was going to hold him for the police. Then he could have said the perp raised his gun at him and he shot him in self defense. That would have worked and he would face no charges. Of course for that to work he would have had to think fast on his feet and be ready with that story when the police came. Plus there is the fact of witnesses. It was wrong what the clerk did but his defense could be that he was in shock after having gun pointed at his face 30 seconds earlier and he didn't realize what he was doing.
Remember intent is a big factor in any criminal case. A good lawyer should be able to get the clerk off or at the very least the most minimum of sentences.

[Blackdiamond]

WTHS74, I understand where you're coming from. That young man had a Mother and a family---that's where my sympathy lies. I'm quite sure the Clerk wishes he had done something else. I feel for his family also.

[icebucket]

The clerk should be charged because he did ot shoot at the robber in the store he shot him across the street from the store and he shot the young man more than one time and if the guy was in the store with the camera's on then the clerk should have let the camera catch the guy robbing the store the he should have gave it to the police and let the police do the job of catching the guy and arrest him instead of shooting the guy once he was out the store.

So, therefore he was shooting to kill and that is what he did and he should be charged for murder.

[icebucket]

To Julia,

At least he did not kill any body. So who are we to Judge. If they had camera's in the store like the paper said then the police could have identified the person and the police could have did what they had to do. Just like police have to do what they have to in the situation with the clerk, because the clerk shot someone that was not shooting at him. The clerk came out of his store and went across the street and shot and killed the young man that did not even shoot at him but was running out the store.

The clerk was in danger when the young man was in the store but when the young man left out the store he was no longer in danger. I don't mean any harm but I'm just saying. :|

[julia]

Icebucket....I see your point & really I agree. However, the police have too many thugs to be looking for and so many times they are not caught. They become repreat offenders. This young man was not an upstanding citizen. He had served time for similar crimes & had just been released. Did he deserve to die....no. However, he went looking for trouble WITH A GUN. He used that gun to commit a crime. He put himself in a stupid, dangerous situation & paid the price. My only hope is that this serves as a warning to other criminals that the might end up in a similar situation if they chose the same path in life. Something has to get through to these kids & wake them up.

[Guest]

In today's world THUGS have a really great chance of getting away with just about anything they wish. The LAW is on there side big time, loopholes, money, alibis, etc.. It could be discussed to no end that this clerk felt he had to do what THE LAW could or would not... he T.C.O.B. After all the kid has a looOOoong record of lawlessness. The clerk,... he obtained an honest paying job.

With situations like this "JUST" maybe (it could and has been argued) the thug needed to be removed from society. After all he used a gun before & felt rather comfy using it again, just this time "IT" caught up with him. Personally I am all for, "You steal, you loose your fingers. Steal again, you loose a wee-bit more. Steal yet again, your gone". It's called "An eye for an eye". Now, in a legal way, have that 3 strike rule. I'm not too keen on this 3 to 1 odds. One could put it this way, the law abiding public has 3 to 1 chance they'll be killed before a gun toting robber.

This current society has gotten WAY to lenient. YES yes yes everybody has rights, but if you play on the wrong side of the law you should only have 10% of the law that the abiding public has. Whereas this 10% will make that lawless person work 90% harder for their freedom. This "FREEDOM" needs to be earned, not just handed to.

YES the clerk needs some justification also,... A badge? A merit? maybe a blue ribbon? YAH RIGHT, you wish. He will get what's coming to him and probably by 12 of his peers, but the punishment will be much less than what the kid got AND ASKED FOR. The kid played by "street rules" the kid got justice by said "street rules".

Now "IF" I were the judge I'd also have the parents looked into by D.C.F.S.. Life could have been good for the kid, the wrong path, he did choose.

I sure hope this discussion is near finished, this story has been bantered almost to death. hock:
.