Justifed? Yes? No?

[TangSooGuy]

I've had seminars on this one by law enforcement agents...this one could go either way.

In my state (pennsylvania) you are allowed to respond with lethal force if you believe your life OR the life of someone else is in danger.

So the question here is: was the clerk's life in danger?

As you describe it...it seems that the clerk's life wasn't really ever in any danger, but the use of a gun almost automatically indicates intent to use it.

It would be a tough on eto prove either way.

If you can show the clerk's life was in danger, then use of deadly force was justified.

Also, you have some murkiness in that you could argue that "deadly force" wasn't really used, but instead that his death was actually aresult of the trauma from the fall...in which case you get very cloudy very fast...

so this particular scenario could very easily go either way depending on the people involved if it went to trial.

[Sam]

yeah thats a good point actually tangsooguy....bout the fall

[Menjo]

Justified because I think the fact that he was in the store with the gun drawn, endangers the black belts life as well...I know thats in effect in some places around but depends where the store is i guess.

[Belasko]

I don't believe a jury would ever convict him. If it actually would go to trial think of all the publicity it would get.......

Movie deals, photo ops, time to write that book ect....

No one in their right mind would hold the person accountable. Morally,

if you feel bad send flowers. There is an inherent danger of being killed while performing an armed robbery. Robber gets killed, sucks for him.

I would like to agree with Shotochem about no one in their right mind convicting this person. However, after working in the ICU and dealing with a large variety of injuries brought about by an incredible number of situations, I truly believe that common sense is not all that common. So how many people are actually in their "right mind?"

[Sam]

what is my "right mind" or anyones.... hehe

[Kaminari]

It was justified, as it was in the protection of the lives of others. The fact that he studies martial arts is irrelevant, as anyone can clock someone in the head hard enough to knock someone unconscious, but, in reality, even the death is not directly his fault, as he did not nor did he mean to kill the robber, merely to incapacitate him.

It's justified in my opinion, but not often seen that way by the judicial system. Often the ruling will be against the martial artist as he is seen to be competent in terms of fighting, and "should have known that the robber might die from this or that", etc. etc. So, it all depends on your point of view.

[Martial_Artist]

In the state of Arizona: 99% justified. I cannot speak for other states. Also, I say 99% simply because you may think you know the judicial system and foresee the outcome of a case, but sursprises are always prevelant. Just to be safe, 99% justified.

I would have most likely done something similar. Except, I carry a gun so I most likely would have simply shot the BG.

[ItalianMuayThai]

legally id bet my money hed catch something. But morally i think he was correct

[Sam]

yeah really depends on where you are.... and what sort of evidence is available.... CCTV etc.

[Menjo]

I know it depends but im guessing he wouldn't get in trouble as long as a video camera was there and he could prove that the clerk's life was in danger.