I agree totally with the use of mace. Anyone who can disagree must be misreading things.
The guy had (in spoken words) given intent to commit murder, only a fool will spend a lot of time wondering if he is just goofing around. Killings occur every day over next to nothing, such as saying no to an armed robber.
A man who has pointed a gun and threatened murder has taken his weapon out of the equation for a while, there is no certainty that he has changed is mind entirely, there is a full excuse for believing that the guy still intends to engage in murder, just after he yells a little longer.
Escalation on the part of the defender isn't to be thought of as escalation, it is simply responding to an ongoing threat. the guy still has a gun in his pocket and he is still behaving violently after threatening murder, and he never said that he was through being a jackass. Legally, although I am not a lawyer, what I see is a defender engaging in non-lethal force to end a possibly lethal threat. While the aggressor has drawn a weapon and threatened murder, he has engaged in assault with intent to kill. The defender has engaged in simple battery.
Enough said about that. I feel that the "escalation" of using CS was not in fact escalation, it was an attempt to non violently disable a man who showed (pretty clearly in spoken words,) intent to commit murder. the defender hoped that the spray would entirely end the guys ability to do so. The actual shooter drew his gun to be prepared in case the aggressor escalated further, responding to non-lethal force (or assault, call it whatever you want) by once again engaging in (probable) attempted murder. Just drawing his gun has escalated the situation. Now, the shooter withheld his attack a reasonable amount of time, maybe he could have held out a little longer without firing that first shot. It wasn't necessary to do so, he had once again shown intent to kill or do severe bodily harm to either of the clerks, or any other bystander. both of those justify use of lethal force by a number of state codes under stand your ground laws, the genuine belief of imminent deadly or extreme injury justifies returning (yes, escalating) with use of deadly force. Stand your ground is all about the rights of a victim to escalate to deadly force before deadly force has already been used by his opponent within reasonable legal interpretation.
I think that the problem that these guys (the defenders) are going to have is that birmingham is not part of a stand your ground state. There is a legal obligation to retreat. They were fully capable of retreat, of dropping behind the counter, but that action would not absolutely and with certainty end the threat. Retreat, as apparently available, may have been only possible in the most narrow definition. Will the court find that the shooter made reasonable efforts to avoid killing?
Mace was not escalation in that encounter, it was legally and morally an attempt to de-escalate, a non-lethal attempt to end a lethal threat. The shooting was problematic according to local codes, as the shooter had at least probable ability to avoid the shooting by escaping.
We have taken a few seconds of action out of what was obviously a long event and taken all context away. We don't know anything that we haven't been spoon fed by media. Based on my observations, the video supports the actions shown. The actions
may become a little less convincing if we saw maybe five minutes of what led to the shooting. If we knew about any history between the aggressor and either the clerks or the store, or if there was any connection at all, we would have another thing to consider.
The most important consideration is that the clerk did not appear to 'retreat' as alabama law would require. the shooter fired his gun when the aggressor's gun was in position to engage in deadly force. The shooter was apparently not running willy-nilly for the back room, whatever form of 'retreat' he engaged in will without doubt be questioned. Firing one, then two follow ups, showed that he obviously did not deliberately murder the aggressor, he acted with deadly force to end the threat.
It's easy to take the five seconds of decision apart and condemn these two for their actions. I have my own questions and doubts. Morally, ethically, it's probable that they had full justification to use deadly force take a life in defense of their own. They do stand on an unsturdy platform regarding the legality, the laws of the state may not support the entire event.
I have to remind myself that the motives of all three people, their intent and feelings, what they actually knew about the situation are absolutely key to the entire event.
Did the aggressor know that the clerks were armed, that one might mace him, the other shoot him? did he have any idea that his actions would have resulted in death? Was he just being a dick, waving his gun around to intimidate and scare the guys who he was arguing with? Did the shooter really, truly believe that his life was in immediate danger, or the lives of others? What would have happened if all three had more intel on the situation they were facing, and was he really intending to murder one of the defenders? If he was bluffing, did the killer know it? Did the killer really act properly with the next two shots? I don't know, I only saw a few seconds of the video, but over and over, all over the country, people are being asked to decide and comment. There are a whole lot of morons out there who are giving opinions based on nothing but a few seconds of video, it's a good thing that we have a court system.
