Marion County Prosecutor Terry Curry, a Democrat who didn't look like much of a friend to gunnies when he ran for the office, has proved he knows the law and can apply it fairly: the man who shot and killed a robber with a hostage at Kroger will not be charged.
The story includes a few more details of the shooting. It looks like a very clear instance of self-defense to me.
Meanwhile, the only word from the supermarket chain is that they're still reviewing the incident. A commenter claims the shooter has been transferred, which isn't surprising. (IMO, if they want to keep a hard line on their firearms policy, they could fine the guy $500 and give him a $500 bonus; but I'm both cynical and optimistic).
If they fined the guy $500, he'd probably clear over four grand in donations.
ReplyDeleteI can only wish the shooter the best. I have a feeling Kroger's isn't going to be kind to him.
ReplyDeleteBest guess: They will wait for the PR storm to blow over and then terminate him quietly.
ReplyDeleteHi RX,
ReplyDelete"The Marion County prosecutor says under Indiana law, the shooting was justified to prevent the commission of a forcible felony (robbery and criminal confinement) and based upon Indiana law pertaining to self-defense and defense of others."
It sounds as if the prosecutor only OK'ed the shooting because it prevented laws from being broken. That might just have been the reporter's slant, but things are not well in the republic when some functionary of the law needs a day or two to decide whether or not you've committed a crime.
Dave
Nathan, I hope the employee makes a stink when/if they terminate him. That way, we can start mailing our Kroger customer loyalty cards to the home office.
ReplyDeleteI'm not so set in my ways that I can't change my grocery store/ gas station/ pharmacy.
Tango Juliet, I'd bet that they can him once the story dies down. The weasels who run large corporations regard expending a few employees now and then to be preferable to defending the inevitable litigation when an employee caps a bad guy.
ReplyDeleteA local town councel here voted unanamously to not put restrictions on NC conceal carry holders: restrictions requestd by the police chief and the town manager.
ReplyDeleteThey wanted to know how this was going to restrict the bad guys.
I was amazed.
Rick, I agree 100%.
ReplyDeleteSomething tells me that all the employees at that particular Krogers knew that Elliot had his CHP and carried to work all the time, and were glad of it. So if Corporate asks the Manager why he allowed his Employees to be Armed, well, can they fire everyone? And think of THAT action heading to the NRLB.
ReplyDeleteSomething tells me that all the employees at that particular Krogers knew that Elliot had his CHP and carried to work all the time, and were glad of it. So if Corporate asks the Manager why he allowed his Employees to be Armed, well, can they fire everyone? And think of THAT action heading to the NRLB.
ReplyDeleteUnderground Carpenter,
ReplyDelete"It sounds as if the prosecutor only OK'ed the shooting because it prevented laws from being broken."
Uh, that's the only time it's okay to shoot somebody. If you shoot someone who's not breaking any laws, that's called "murder".
Yeah, and not just any laws but a forcible felony
ReplyDeleteIndiana code on use of deadly force.
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title35/ar41/ch3.html
The comments on the story you linked are bizarre. From the commentor insinuating that Elliott was actually a mass murderer in waiting to the armed robber fan club commentors.
ReplyDeleteTam,
ReplyDeleteThanks for that, but really, madame, you wound me.
I was trying to make a subtle distinction between the God-given right to self-defense and the codified privilege of self-defense; the difference between morality and law.
Instead of a presumption of innocence, you can bet the first thing the po-leece did was to disarm Elliott, then confiscate his weapon and take him downtown for questioning under some 100-watt light bulbs. And if he had so much as an unpaid parking ticket, he'd have spent the night in the hoosegow. That sounds like a presumption of guilt.
As for Kroger, why did they hire that "unarmed security guard"?
Dave
"As for Kroger, why did they hire that 'unarmed security guard'?"
ReplyDeleteTo intimidate/ impress/ otherwise influence the behavior of the customers that weren't going to be a problem anyway.
Armed security guards in a grocery store brings to mind the old joke about being a waist gunner on a bread truck.