Sunday, August 19, 2012
First I do not know either party and have no input from law enforcement or attorneys. My conclusions are based on U-B reports and Jim Nagle’s letter.
There is no argument that the New York Store was robbed of six belts and a belt buckle with damage done to the front glass door and a display case. The question stems from the shooting by the owner of the suspect.
The dispute is: Did the owner have the right based on self-defense of himself, property or to stop a fleeing felon? The argument of self defense or property when the suspect left the store doesn’t stand up. The suspect was pushing or riding his bicycle away from the store, not straight across the street but on a diagonal line toward the Colonial Motel.
With a near-full moon that night it would be easy for the human eye to detect if the suspect was moving away and not toward the owner. Also the fact that he was able to hit the suspect at 120 feet to 150 feet moving away shows he was able to see his movement.
So it comes down to a fleeing felon.
How would you know if he was a fleeing felon unless you were a law enforcement officer making an arrest based on prior information? The argument that the owner says the suspect threatened him doesn’t make it so. We will never know.
But the owner did in fact step out of his store door, take aim and shoot the suspect moving away at 120 feet to 150 feet. Not an easy shot with a shotgun with buckshot. Not one shot, but five. Not trying to scare the suspect off, but intending to kill him.
Many things bother me about this incident. Number one is why no alarm system for the store? If the owner was worried about robbery why wouldn’t he have one? Not from a fancy alarm company, but just a loud alarm? Buy a shotgun as a backup, no problem. But an alarm could have scared off the suspect and saved all a lot of heartache.
Before anyone jumps to assumptions. I believe everyone has the legal right to own a gun to protect themselves and their family. If this shooting had happened within the store, I wouldn’t be writing this letter.
Finally to Jim Nagle. He was not hired for the easy cases. It’s the hard ones that we need a prosecuting attorney for. Dropping a case because it’s too hard means he is not good enough for his position.