Controversy? Looks Like Appropriate Self Defense – Cue The Tape….

HOUSTON—As family members of a man who was shot by a Valero clerk in southeast Houston called for the store clerk’s arrest, the store owner released surveillance video.

Alexander Calloway, 21, and his two cousins were trying to enter the gas station on Martin Luther King and Belarbor around 3:30 a.m., but the store was locked. The young men got into an argument with the clerk, who unlocked his door and came outside, police said.

Someone punched the clerk in the face and the clerk pulled out his gun and shot Calloway in the stomach, according to HPD.

Calloway’s cousins rushed him to a fire station on Cullen at Selinsky, and paramedics transported him to Ben Taub Hospital in critical condition.

On Tuesday, the store owner played the surveillance video for KHOU 11 News.

It showed the store clerk being punched by Calloway before the clerk opened fire.

Community members marched in front of the store and demanded justice.  Calloway’s father blamed the clerk for what happened to his son(read more)

 Calloway’s father blamed the clerk for what happened to his son.

Calloway’s father blamed the clerk for what happened to his son.

 

Calloway’s father blamed the clerk for what happened to his son.

Someone who has some time on their hands should do a metric graph showing the street names of places where murder, rape, armed robberies, shootings, and store robberies take place.  

I’ll hazard a guess the roads named: Dr. Martin Luther King St./Rd./Blvd./Ave./etc.   will show an exponentially higher rate of criminal danger associated with it.

Actuarials could then assess risk – insurance risk – based on proximity to street names with the highest incidents of criminal activity.  

About these ads
This entry was posted in Death Threats, media bias, Political correctness/cultural marxism, Racism, Thrill Kill, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

177 Responses to Controversy? Looks Like Appropriate Self Defense – Cue The Tape….

  1. Arkindole says:

    When I read at the top “Martin Luther King St./Rd./Blvd./Ave./etc.” before the continue link, I was about to comment on that. We have many locally, and they are the sleaziest ratholes on the face of the planet–I’d take my chances in Syria or Gaza; day or night. Why would a “community” allow that condition to exist/degrade with the namesake? Let’s put it another way–suppose we had a main street named John F. Kennedy. Where would it be located demographically, and would it decompose over the years? So, what can we conclude? Is there any pride/respect in that namesake?

  2. PatriotUSA says:

    Sorry about having to shoot you but I would have done the same thing.

    I was held up three times at a 24/7 truck stop outside of Flagstaff, Arizona as a fuel tender, many, many years ago. Dead of winter, extreme darkness and one time I had a sawed off shotgun on my right temple. It was after the last robbery I started being CCW.

    I would have NOT unlocked the door at 3:30 AM, just saying and the employee had been shot robbed and shot before? This is a no brainer and yes, the name of the street is a factor. In Portland and other cities, MLK Blvd etc. seem to have higher crime stats.

    “Actuarials could then assess risk – insurance risk – based on proximity to street names with the highest incidents of criminal activity.”

    Excellent idea and of course we know that this would be branded as racist, just like this act of SELF DEFENSE has been branded as a racist crime. If not, it will be.

    • myopiafree says:

      Hi Patriot – what is WRONG with these VIOLENT THUGS?? Have they not learned that you do not punch a person is the face – FOR NO REASON AT ALL?? What did this parent teach this THUG? That it is OK to do that?? I hope this THUG does not die – but if he does – it is the failure of the parent to TEACH his son that you DO NOT ATTACK A PERSON WITH YOUR FISTS – EVER. I don’t know if you have seen this video, but it is on this LINK.
      http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/10/17/trayvon-swung-on-a-bus-driver-impossible/#comments
      I regret that so many young men in this “culture” feel that they have THE RIGHT to USE THERE FISTS ON ANYONE – WITH NO REASON AT ALL TO DO IT – BUT THEY DO!!

  3. jordan2222 says:

    Where is the rest of the video?

  4. obsidian53 says:

    The most important lesson to be learned here is, Don’t strike someone in the face in an attempt to sucker punch them, the blow was aimed at the knock out strike zone of the jaw. The attacker was trying to sneak in a knock out for what ever reasons, revenge, rage or robbery. The victim was blessed with a jaw like a rock and the blow did not knock him out, most likely the blow rattled his brain though making judgement impaired and then the fight or flight sets in, He was where he was supposed to be legally and had no duty to retreat, if he had the attacker would no doubt pursued the victim inside the store. The victim then defended himself and his bosses store with deadly force.
    The victim should have walked away and called 911, The victim should not have opened the door.
    Just because he opened the door did not give the attacker the right to sucker punch him in a fit of rage. The victim did not have to defend himself with just his fist he was legally allowed to use what ever force it took to stop the attackers physical aggression.
    Rules to live by.
    1. never in a rage strike someone else in the face or body.
    2. When faced with an enraged individual walk away and do not open the door.
    3. Can’t we all jest git along?
    4. If the store be closed you can always find another store that is open, calm down and enjoy the trip.
    5. Honest to god I know it’s corny but when people are in this situation just ask yourself, What Would Jesus Do?

    • Sharon says:

      Re #5: ;) It’s never really safe to challenge people to ask themselves, “What would Jesus do?” because the answer they come up with depends on what they been taught or have chosen to believe about Jesus–true or not..

      Some people have some strange ideas about the character of Jesus. obama believes he would take the personal property of people who worked hard for it and give it to others.

      • obsidian53 says:

        This wasn’t about Obama.

        Well, hell I guess ya’ll can just beat and knife, stomp and rob at will then.
        Forget WWJD and ask your self, What Would a psychopathic maniac do.

        #5 was just a plea to think of something, anything besides cold cocking or shooting someone in a fit of rage or fear even if it’s just pure meanness.
        But Ya’ll do what ya’ll think ya’ll got to do, I won’t stand in your way.

        As they say around these parts, “HAVE AT IT!”

        • Sharon says:

          Sorry. I mis-construed your intent. If you presented it just as a plea to think of anything else to do–it does the job. :( I took it too literally. (And of course, I’ve never done that before. Again :( )

    • sundance says:

      There is a lot of stressed opinion in this thread.

      Photobucket

      Photobucket

      Photobucket

  5. John Galt says:

    “Community members marched in front of the store and demanded justice.”

    I join the demand for justice. Charge the thug with aggravated assault if he survives.

  6. Bongo says:

    For those who say “the clerk should not have opened the door and gone outside the store”, that’s akin to saying George Zimmerman should not have gotten out of his truck. In both instances, the assault victims had every right to go where they did, but the aggressors had no right to assault them. In both cases, it appears a sucker punch was employed which opens the door to self defense.

    • Sha says:

      I wouldn’t say he shouldn’t have gone out side because we don’t have any idea what they where saying to each other or if he even knew the guy. Either way the man had no business putting his hands on the clerk at all. What I’m saying is the clerk wasn’t expecting that you can tell , which make’s me think he knew him or he had been coming into the store some and this was his normal behavior to the clerk.

      • Bongo says:

        It looked to me as though the store clerk actually invited the guy to come inside the store and buy something, but instead he was assaulted. In any case, I don’t blame him for shooting the jerk. Apparently neither do the police.

  7. aliashubbatch says:

    Clerk looks arab to me…
    *HEADLINE: WHITE-ARAB SHOOT INNOCENT BLACK BEHBEH* :roll:

  8. ftsk420 says:

    Why did he unlock the door and why did he want the guy to come in side. I don’t see a reason to shoot when it’s technically 2 on 1. But the guy did punch him in the face.

    • Sha says:

      If I understand correctly there where more guy’s outside of the store. Maybe that’s why he tried to get him to come in so they could solve what ever the problem was in safety. The clerk didn’t seem like he was afraid of him, but that he was shocked when he hit him.

      • ftsk420 says:

        From looking at the tape I see no reason to shoot him. The guy wasn’t alone there was somebody standing right next to him when he was punched. Unless there is more to the tape and the guy was dragged outside and had no choice but to shoot.

        • SR says:

          One punch, one dead man. Getting hit in the face is or can be life threatening. And amazing, 17 years old. Ring any bells?

          http://www.neoshodailynews.com/article/20121128/NEWS/121128928/1001/NEWS

          • ftsk420 says:

            Judging by the tape I can’t sit here and say the shooting was justified. Just getting punched in the face does not justify shooting someone. Like in the TM case George being punched in the face wasn’t enough to shoot TM it was enough to shoot him once he mounted him and slammed his head against the ground. Store was locked so I’m assuming it has an outside window they use unless the store was closed for the night. No reason to unlock the door. I don’t see how he can say his life was in danger when he could have kept the door locked or after being punched could have went back in side locked the door and called the cops. I would like to see the rest of the video or atleast know more about the case before I say he was justified. If I shot everyone that ever punched me in the face there would be a lot of dead people.

            • SR says:

              “Just getting punched in the face does not justify shooting someone.”
              I agree….. when we were kids. As adults, this is life threatening behavior.

              Willing to get punched twice??

              No duty to retreat in Texas, and why would you want to if you could defend yourself to avoid death or grave bodily injury.

              • ftsk420 says:

                My only problem with this is there was another person standing right next to him I don’t think there would have been another punch thrown. If it was me I would have swung back right away. Not seeing the entire tape makes it hard to back this guy up and say it was justified.

                • 1harpazo says:

                  Are you referring to the man in a red shirt? I don’t know if he’s an employee or a customer. Maybe the door was locked to prevent masked gunmen from entering without the clerk first seeing them. Once the clerk was sure that the customer was there for business and not robbery, he could unlock the door and let them in. That’s why he opened the door and invited his attacker in.

            • Sha says:

              ftsk420: I don’t know some thing just doesn’t fit…… Why would you fire someone for protecting themself ? As for you getting punched in the face …. I have been punched in the face also , but I punch back and I’m sure you do to.

              • ftsk420 says:

                In NY we had a Mobil gas station that would close the inside of the store after 11pm but had a walk up window. Now I know they weren’t allowed to open the door and let anyone in the side after that time. Maybe this place had the same set up and by opening the door the employee didn’t follow protocol. Like
                I said before if I shot everyone that ever punched me in the face there would be a lot of dead people.

                • obsidian53 says:

                  A fist punch of the right power and location on your head can kill you, stun you so you can be stomped to death (favorite method of taking down and killing by certain groups of people) the blow to the clerks head was right at the jaw line it was supposed to knock the clerk out for what ever reason. Delivered the right way this blow can paralyze or kill.
                  The main question here is, Why stand and let someone punch you in the face and even if the puncher is a trained boxer or kung fu expert BUT you still have to fight with your fist against a better trained foe? There ain’t no Marquis de Queens-berry rules on the street.
                  If a person punches me in the face I would walk away and call 911 and a lawyer, if that person pursues I will use whatever force I feel is needed to stop the attacker.
                  No one is going to just punch me in the face until I am injured or dead.

                • Sha says:

                  ftsk420: I understand what you are trying to say. You are trying to say if you can avoid a confrontation that you know might happen avoid it, not for the sake of the other person but for your sake.

              • John Galt says:

                “Why would you fire someone for protecting themself ?”

                Probably didn’t want to see a replay of the Scheme Team Extravaganza.

            • Chip Bennett says:

              Don’t forget the other critical factor in determining whether one is justified in using lethal force in self-defense: disparity of force. At the moment the use of lethal force occurred, the self-defendant had just been subjected to felony assault (or battery; don’t know Texas statues that intimately), while being accosted by not one, but three men (the assailant and his two friends).

              Is a lone punch to the face sufficient grounds? Perhaps; perhaps not.

              Is a lone punch to the face by a man backed up by two others sufficient grounds? Almost unquestionably.

              • ftsk420 says:

                Where in that video do you see any of this guys friends I sure don’t see any. Clerk had someone with him and he had already had his gun out.

                • Chip Bennett says:

                  I actually agree with you. I was just pointing out that the sucker punch isn’t the only mitigating factor in the incident.

                  • ftsk420 says:

                    I was just looking at a google earth image and it shows the gas station and it also shows walk up windows outside 2 of them. That tells me that the inside of the store closes and all business should be conducted through the window. I’m not saying the guy who got shot was right I just want to see more evidence like the rest of that video or video by the window outside. From what I can tell there is a camera outside by those windows.

          • myopiafree says:

            Hi SR – Yes, but because the guy was White – this is not a “race crime”.
            But Trayvon Martin could have killed with his fists – at age 17. He was hardly “un-armed”.
            +++++
            The altercation allegedly began when Bates showed up at the residence to pick up his younger sibling.
            According to the statement, Bates struck Pettry in the face with his right fist, allegedly causing Pettry’s death.
            “The victim was struck in the face and possibly kicked, both in the face and torso by the suspect, fell to the ground after the assault and did not recover,” the statement reads.
            Attempts by Freeman Paramedics to revive Pettry were unsuccessful.
            Following the altercation, Bates returned to the scene, at Barrett’s request and confessed to the altercation.
            However, on Wednesday, Bates pleaded not guilty to a felony charge of first-degree assault.

      • thefirstab says:

        Sha – “If I understand correctly there where more guy’s outside of the store.”
        Somewhere (maybe one of the provided links or even the video), I also heard that there were two “cousins” in the car. Also, that someone in same car had a shotgun? I wish I could remember, as I don’t like to repeat/embellish false info.
        Please notice in video, what type of hand gesture is the white T-shirt guy making? Looks like a “handgun” to me – that would definitely put me on high alert.

        • John VI says:

          The story reports that his two cousins transported him to medical attention, so they were likely there as well. In the car, or outside it, there were at least 3 of them visible to the clerk. And the Owner of the store stated that he fired the clerk for the good of the community. More or less trying to prevent violent reprisals against his store from the local “activists” probably.

        • Sha says:

          thefirstab: I would like to see the rest of the tape and what happens next.

  9. LoudaJew says:

    African Americans love to play the vifctim. I don’t see Haitians or Jamaicans doing this. I don’t even see Jewish people doing this, and they were thrown in gas chambers less than 100 years ago. BIG BABIES!

  10. Sal Paradise says:

    At the end of the day, when all is said and done, if he didn’t punch him, he wouldn’t have gotten shot. Now he’s the vicitm, I’m sure if it was the other way around, his dad would be saying “well, he shouldn’t have punched my son first”.

  11. hoonan says:

    Reporter Rucks Russell: “…but a lot of the people protesting have never seen the video tape…”

    Sorry to tell ya Rucks…that don’t matter to them….

    Also another quote that stands out…
    “We want the store merchants to respect us and we must respect them…..” LOL

  12. I’d like to hear the clerks statement as to what the assault perpetrator’s two accomplices were doing during the punch & immediately after. The reporter stated @1:54 that the clerk wasn’t only fearful of Alexander Calloway but also of Calloway’s two armed companions. I wouldn’t be surprised if Calloway’s two cousins reached for their weapons they were displaying/brandishing & the clerk realized he had opened the door to armed robbery. Just saying: Were I the clerk who (shot during a previous robbery) found himself confronted by two (possibly three) armed men at 3:30am & one of them attacks me. I probably would’ve perceived the assault to be the start of an armed robbery. What did the guy (wearing the red shirt) behind the clerk have to say as whether he saw the two accomplices weapons?

    • ftsk420 says:

      Why even open the door?

      • brocahontas says:

        Why not? Maybe he noticed their guns after he opened the door.

        • ftsk420 says:

          It’s 3am if the door was locked that means the store was closed or they had a walk up window. No reason to open the door. But like I said before I don’t know enough about this to say he was justified.

          • boutis says:

            The fact is the victim of the punch to the face does not have to justify anything he did. Opening the door, not opening the door, whatever. He was punched in the face, by a person with two other people backing him up. The victim of the sucker punch provoked NOTHING. If you are going to play shoulda, woulda, coulda, maybe he was concerned they were going to be hanging around in the parking lot hassling people trying to buy gas, or were going to jump him when he went off shift going to his car, or they were going to sacrifice a goat to the spirits to read its entrails. It does not matter. This dope assaulted him. Period. He defended himself before it escalated into a murder or armed robbery. He is not required to read this fools mind. This is allowed by law in Texas because we do think people have the right to hit us in the head and kill us. If anyone does not want to be shot do not hit people in the head. It is very simple.

            • ftsk420 says:

              I see it different. I’m not defending the guy who was shot I’m saying there is more to it then we know. I think there was a walk up window there and that’s where it started. Probably just shit talking. looking at the video they are exchanging words and we don’t know what is being said now do we? So basically you are saying that getting punched in the face allows you to use deadly force? look at the video the clerk had the upper hand he had someone with him. The guy who got shot may have had people outside but they are nowhere in the video.

              • Knuckledraggingwino says:

                I understand your point about the clerk opening the door rather than conduct anyntransaction through the walk up window. This was a violation of company procedure bynthe clerk and a TACTICAL error. These points being conceded, they do not negate the clerk’s right toswlf defense. My comments below were posted without reading the entire thread. From a more careful reading (still not finished) i get the impression that the thugs two thuggy friends were armed and subsequently shot up the store. Is this correct? If so, what argument is there for not shooting the thug?

                Attention Thugs, Know your rights.

                You have the right to die.

                You have the right to remain dead.

                Any weapon available to me can and will be used to kill you.

                If you do not have a body bag, ine will be provided for you.

                If you do not wish to die, do not attempt to murder, rape, assault or rob me or any member of my family.

                In closing, would it not have been marvelous if someone had opened fire on thebmarchers killing a bunch of them? It would have made the point that we are tired of the poverty pimps and the entire, poverty pimping industrial complex aiding and abetting these thugs by demonstrating and threatening thug riots. As the FBI murder stats reveal,we already have a race war going on in this country, only most whites don’t know it because the media isn’t talking about the epidemic of black on white crime. It is time for whitey to riot and kill so many of President Obama’s bastard sons that they will never, ever be able to elect a poverty pimp again.

          • brocahontas says:

            Why does it matter? He was assaulted with potentially deadly force so he shot the guy. It is pretty simple. Not sure why you are having a hard time understanding that.

            • ftsk420 says:

              Missing the point a little here. My point is why did he unlock the door in the first place. Remember it’s 3am so either the store was closed or there was a walk up window. The clerk went to the door with another person so he was not alone. I don’t see the punch in the face as a reason to shoot. Where is the rest of the video. I have been saying since the start that there isn’t enough in the video to justify shooting the guy.

              • boutis says:

                You are not getting the point because you don’t want to do so. If I hit you in the head how many shots do I get before you react. It doesn’t matter that he opened a door, or dropped down from the moon. By law all that is considered is from the point he cold cocked the guy. Forget the door, forget it is in a store, or a bar, or a football game. It stated from the point the fool clipped the guy and the guy reacting with a gun. He could not read his mind. He thought he was going to kill him so he killed him first. This is legal.

                • ftsk420 says:

                  This is legal even though the clerk had somebody with him? If you hit me I hit you back right away. I don’t see a punch in the face as a reason to shoot someone. Gorge Zimmerman situation is way different then this one.

                  • JAS says:

                    Let’s follow your logic… Let’s say I’m the bad guy. I punch you in the face, then you punch me, then I pull a gun and shoot you. Get the picture? There is NO way to know how these things go down.

                    J.

                  • ftsk420 says:

                    How about this I own a gas station which the inside of closes at a certain time. You come to the walk up window we have an argument. You call me outside to continue this argument I come to the door with a loaded hand gun in my hand and I unlock the door and open it. Words are exchanged and you hit me then I shoot you. Are you gonna feel it’s all my fault or are you gonna say I helped escalate the situation by opening a door that didn’t need to be opened.

                  • obsidian53 says:

                    Bubba if I decide for what ever reason to hit someone in the face I will not stop punching until that person is down and in great pain even unconscious. When I fight psychically with a stranger I will go all out to win.
                    I do not plan on standing and trading blows with my adversary.
                    That’s just stupid anywhere outside of a boxing match or other contact sport there are no rules in a street fight.

                  • ftsk420 says:

                    Bubba wtf?

              • Chip Bennett says:

                ftsk420 is making a valid point here.

                Carrying a firearm carries with it the responsibility not to use it recklessly, or to escalate a situation that may result in the need to use deadly force.

                It is without question that he acted stupidly by opening the locked door, regardless of the reason. But if it can be proven that he unlocked the door to engage in and to continue the verbal altercation that started at the window, then it is very likely that he will be charged with, and found guilty of, some form of manslaughter (assuming the assailant dies of his gunshot wound).

                Granted, that could be a very difficult thing to prove. But it is a risk one takes in this situation. The prosecution could ask some very difficult questions, such as why, if the self-defendant was armed due to fear of additional armed robberies, he opened an unlocked door for three clearly agitated men. It is not a huge leap of logic to argue that he did so because he was welcoming an escalation of the ongoing confrontation.

            • boutis says:

              I think he has been punched a few times and it didn’t hurt or something. There are people who think provocation has to be to the point of death before someone is allowed to defend themselves. The concept that you can’t anticipate when you will reach the point of incapacitation is beyond them. The point of the knock out game is to incapacitate someone with one punch to the head so they cannot fight back, identify them, or stop them from doing whatever they choose. The fact that blunt force trauma to the head can cause brain damage, break their neck, or kill them seems OK to them because of ignorance or sociopath tendencies. You teach kids not to hit in the head EVER. Anyone that thinks it is ever acceptable is asking for a maximum response because they are threatening death and their refusal to acknowledge that shows they have major problems. with

              • ftsk420 says:

                “The point of the knock out game is to incapacitate someone with one punch to the head so they cannot fight back, identify them, or stop them from doing whatever they choose.”

                This was no knock out game sorry. The point of the knock out game is you don’t know it’s coming and you don’t see it coming it’s basically getting sucker punched. This was not that the clerk may not have known the guy was gonna swing but they were face to face exchanging words and that’s not how the game is played. Have you ever been in a fist fight ever?

                • boutis says:

                  Yep. Texas law doesn’t care. Hit someone, make them fear for their life, and they can fight back. Arguing nor opening a door is provocation to hit someone in the head, jaw or face.

                  • ftsk420 says:

                    Look at the video again maybe it’s just me but I feel that clerk opened that door knowing there was gonna be some sort of fight. The guy who was shot was calling the clerk outside and the clerk was telling the guy to come in. When they get close it looks like the guy tells him to say something again and it appears the clerk does. I wanna see the rest of the video and I wanna hear it. If he was in the right why was he fired.

      • The news reporter stated they previously argued through the glass prior to the clerk opening the door. You noted that the clerk first appeared to welcome Calloway inside. I’d guess that Calloway may have pleaded to use the restroom or desperately needed something such as baby formula or diapers. If Calloway was a regular customer the clerk may have opened the door for smokes or blunts. I’d guess that after the clerk gestured entry but Calloway didn’t enter, the clerk noticed the accomplices weapons & figured they were about to attempt an armed robbery. “Why even open the door?” If the clerk hadn’t opened the door it’s probably Calloway doesn’t attack the clerk & he doesn’t get shot. I’d counter: Why even argue with the store clerk? Had Calloway’s Crew not argued with the clerk & talked him into opening the door for whatever reason, then it’s also very unlikely Calloway would’ve been shot by the clerk. Due to the very limited information available, I’d have to speculate the clerk was fooled to open the door unknowing the three guys (at least two were armed) planned to attempt an armed robbery. The appearance of the second clerk caused them to hesitate when calloway’s lame attempt to knock out the clerk failed. Like I said it’s just speculation because at this stage of the story we don’t know what prompted the clerk to open the door. Maybe the other clerk could shed some light as to why the door was opened.

        • ftsk420 says:

          Like I said before there is way more to this then we know. If there was a walk up window then that’s where the sale is to be made. No bathroom no exceptions the door doesn’t get unlocked. If the clerk provoked the situation by opening the door while he had someone with him then in part he was wrong. We don’t know what was said clerk could have said a lot of things we don’t know. Again looking at the tape I don’t see this guys friends or family in it but I do see the clerk and someone else at the door.

          • brocahontas says:

            Opening a door is not threatening or illegal. Punching someone unprovoked is illegal and potentially deadly especially since the puncher had his crew with him. In that case defending oneself at all costs is appropriate and protected by law.

            • ftsk420 says:

              But how do you know it was unprovoked. They both seem to be looking to get into some altercation. When the clerk opens the door the guy who was shot wants him to come outside the clerk wants him to come in. That same clerk was shot in the leg at that gas station in 2011. I think the reason he was fired is because he didn’t follow store policy and opened that door. Puncher may have had his crew but the clerk wasn’t alone either.

              • brocahontas says:

                Someone saying something mean to you does not give you the right to punch them. Words no matter how assholish cannot be legally used to justify physical action against a person.

                • ftsk420 says:

                  Again missing the point it’s clear that clerk was looking for a confrontation he opened the locked door with the hand gun out. If you own that same gas station and we exchange words through a glass window I tell you to step out side is that what you are gonna do?

                  • ctdar says:

                    No matter how you spin it you do not know what the motive was for why the clerk opened the door. With that in mind, if someone cold cocked me without provocation I’m gonna assume he is gonna hurt me worse or kill me and i will defend myself to the best of my ability especially in the middle of the night at a gas and convenience store with unknown anount of cash in drawer.
                    without a doubt, i will defend myself every time.

                  • ftsk420 says:

                    My honest opinion is the clerk intended on shooting this guy before he opened that door. There was no reason to open the door at all. Also the clerk seemed to want the guy inside which also makes no sense.

      • obsidian53 says:

        The perp wanted in, the store is a place to shop, the clerk let him in to stop or suppress the screaming monkey fit the perp was pitching. The perp then threw a sucker punch expecting the clerk to fall down knocked out what the perp had in mind to do next is the question. The clerk most likely thought the perp would buy his item on his shopping list and then leave the situation defused BUT, the perp decides to throw that punch.
        Then the perp got shot.
        Self defense, store defense and robbery/stomping death averted.

  13. In self-defense, disparity of force is key. A disparity may exist if the defender is facing two or more attackers, or one attacker who has expert skills in fighting or boxing. As Massad Ayoob says, a shooting where the confronation is man-on-man “Mano-mano” will probably result in an arrest. There is more material on the web, just search for the term “disparity of force” or “judicious use of force.”

    • See also Mr. Ayoob’s speech at the Cato Institute:

    • brocahontas says:

      Once someone attacks you with intent to harm disparity of force doesn’t matter. Disparity of force only matters before the assault has happened. Like three guys running at you.

      • ftsk420 says:

        What 3 guys I see one guy outside 2 in the store. I said before I’ll say it again why open the door at all there is no reason to. This guy wanted to do harm to you and you open the door to let him something isn’t right that’s all I’m sayin. I think the clerk knew the guy was gonna do something which is why he motioned for him to come in the store and I believe the clerk knew if he was assaulted he could use deadly force. Why don’t we get to see the rest of the tape and why can’t we hear anything.

      • Chip Bennett says:

        Once someone attacks you with intent to harm disparity of force doesn’t matter.

        I don’t think there’s a legal basis for this claim, as an absolute.

        Disparity of force can be increased through the attack (such as the attacker getting on top of a weakened victim, preventing escape). It can also factor into whether use of lethal force is justified. If someone a foot shorter and 100 pounds lighter than me punches me, I have several reasonable options short of using lethal force to defend myself.

        • JAS says:

          ……..Once someone attacks you with intent to harm disparity of force doesn’t matter.

          I don’t think there’s a legal basis for this claim, as an absolute………

          Sorry to burst that bubble, but that is the law. An attack with intent to harm can be met with a nuke if you happen to have one handy.

          J.

          • ftsk420 says:

            I think they both intended to do harm to each other. If the clerk wasn’t armed do you still think he would have opened the door.

          • Chip Bennett says:

            Sorry to burst that bubble, but that is the law. An attack with intent to harm can be met with a nuke if you happen to have one handy.

            I would recommend actually reading the Texas statutes regarding the justifiable use of deadly force, before making such absurd claims.

            To wit:

            Sec. 9.22. NECESSITY. Conduct is justified if:
            (1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm;

            Also:

            Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
            (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
            (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
            (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
            (C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
            (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used;

            Also:

            Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
            (1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
            (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
            (A) to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force
            ; or
            (B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
            (b) The actor’s belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
            (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
            (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
            (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
            (C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
            (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used;

            I see no basis for your claim that Texas statute allows for the justified use of deadly force in response to any form of attack whatsoever with intent to harm. Also, if the self-defendant provoked the attacker, then the self-defendant loses the statutory presumption of reasonableness.

        • obsidian53 says:

          Sounds like a man who has not fought with many Asians.
          Self defense means ensuring you as a victim survives the encounter your only option is to win by any means at your disposal.

          • Chip Bennett says:

            Sounds like a man who has not fought with many Asians.

            I wasn’t speaking in absolutes; rather, I was demonstrating how determination of disparity of force is entirely situation-dependent.

            I assume by “Asians” you really mean, “someone with martial arts skills“? If that’s a valid assumption: don’t you think that martial arts skills would factor into a determination of disparity of force?

            It is absolutely clear that the store clerk acted in self-defense upon being sucker-punched. What remains unclear is if the situation justified the use of deadly force in self-defense. That determination remains in the hands of the investigators, and perhaps ultimately, the courts.

            We also know with absolute certainty that the typical race-baiters will try to spin this into the next Zimmerman-Martin case, regardless of the truth. We who understand that The Truth Has No Agenda should remain focused on unraveling the truth, and should aim our collective firepower against the race-baiters and their ilk, rather than becoming a circular firing squad over preliminary versions of the Truth.

            The facts of this case may very well bear out that the store clerk was fully justified in the use of deadly force in self-defense. But we must remember that the facts of the case also might bear out that he was not justified.

            Let’s not attack each other while we wait for the Truth to reveal itself.

            • obsidian53 says:

              I didn’t attack you dude.
              All Asians are not martial arts trained.
              As for Asians I mean just your common run of the mill Asian, Vietnamese, Japanese who stand about 5′ 5″ and have no martial arts training. They don’t have to be Asian my experience is the l’il guys fight harder and more ruthless because they are l’il guys.

              So your 6’6″ and because your opponent is a l’il guy you’ll pull punches and not use disproportionate response when fighting with him to “give the l’il guy a break” you intended to stand and let yourself be bullied beaten and killed in a fair fight which actually depends on the l’il guy fighting fair. I bet once he’s kicked you in the balls you’ll forget about disproportionate response while your getting beaten lying on the ground.

              Sounds like a real plan!

              • Chip Bennett says:

                So your 6’6″ and because your opponent is a l’il guy… [blah blah blah]

                You still appear to be missing my point entirely. At this point, I wonder if it is actually a case that you’re ignoring my point, in favor of constructing straw men? If so, I’ll just leave you to your straw men.

  14. ftsk420 says:

    Seems odd to me that this guy opened the door he knew what would happen or what could happen. He was shot in 2011 in the leg at that gas station. I still say there is more to this then we are being told.

    • brocahontas says:

      irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that he was attacked and defended himself.

      • ftsk420 says:

        Not irrelevant to me. To me it says this guy was looking for trouble which is why he unlocked the door and came from behind bullet proof glass. Most people after being shot the year before would just call the cops they would never open the door.

        • Seeking the Truth says:

          After reading your many dense comments, now I understand why you have been punched in the face a lot.

          • ftsk420 says:

            Excuse me? is that comment really necessary. I won’t be disrespectful here on this site but next time think before you post I’m not the one to screw with.

          • LandauMurphyFan says:

            “After reading your many dense comments, now I understand why you have been punched in the face a lot.”

            Ftsk and Chip have a valid point. Ftsk is not being “dense” but is making his point over and over again because others keep challenging it (as of course they have every right to do in a civil discussion). You may disagree with his point (I happen to agree with it) but there’s no need to be rude.

            • obsidian53 says:

              Shure Thang Honey especially when it doesn’t fit your agenda.
              QUERY: who had the right to open or close the door?
              Who had the right to assault someone after they opened the door?
              Who had the right to defend them selves against attack?
              One person may walk away door closed, another might say OK you can come in and buy the items you seek, while still another will assault someone who was just trying to sell and send away an obviously disgruntled consumer.
              The door is not the issue, the punching assault of the clerk is, the shooting was the end result.
              Who attacked who physically first?

          • Don’t you mean questing for truth & justice? Yeah: we’ve been playing along.

          • Sha says:

            seeking the Truth: After reading your rude response , I assume you are dense. See how that assuming thing goes…..

    • Angel says:

      “Seems odd to me that this guy opened the door he knew what would happen or what could happen.”

      I wondered why this guy opened the door too if there was heated dispute going on.

      • ftsk420 says:

        I think the reason he was fired is because he opened the door. This same clerk was shot at that gas station in 2011 and when he opened the door he had the gun in his hand. Things seem fishy to me

        • myopiafree says:

          Hi Ftsk – I agree this is a difficult case. The clerk should have kept the door locked – and called the police. It is difficult to understand WHY he opened the door. This will indeed be prosecuted – the thug for punching the clerk – and perhaps the response.

          • ftsk420 says:

            Like I said before I don’t think the guy who was shot was right and I don’t think the clerk was right. I believe they both were wrong.

      • obsidian53 says:

        Doesn’t matter what happened after the door was opened is the issue.
        There is no duty to retreat when the customer just wants to shop.
        The clerk did not understand that the reason and purpose for getting him to open the door by ruse or lies was to punch him in the face.
        he opened the door because his judgement of the situation was flawed he did not expect an attack.

        • Chip Bennett says:

          I would urge some caution/restraint at this point. You appear to be assuming facts not yet in evidence about this case. To wit:

          …he opened the door because his judgement of the situation was flawed he did not expect an attack.

          You simply don’t know that for certain.

          At this point, it is absolutely reasonable to ask, if the clerk did not expect an attack, why he had his gun so readily available when he opened the door.

          It is also reasonable to ascertain the extent to which the store clerk escalated the confrontation that led to the punch. We don’t know what words were exchanged at the door. We don’t know what words were exchanged (or what actions took place) at the walk-up window prior to the clerk unlocking the door.

          Despite your insistence that anything that happened prior to the punch is irrelevant, my initial reading of the relevant statutes leads me to believe otherwise. According to the statutes, if the store clerk provoked the attacker, then the clerk loses the presumption of justification to use deadly force in self defense, and would then presumably bear some burden of proof that his use of deadly force was justified.

          • obsidian53 says:

            “I would urge some caution/restraint at this point. ”
            This sounds like a threat.

            • Chip Bennett says:

              “I would urge some caution/restraint at this point. ”
              This sounds like a threat.

              Please re-take reading comprehension, or come back when you’re not so emotionally invested in the discussion that you render yourself unable to comprehend the obvious meaning of words.

              (Or maybe you’re just here looking for a fight? If that is the case, then you will be sorely disappointed, because that dog won’t hunt.)

    • JAS says:

      All speculation, the law is clear,

      J.

      • ftsk420 says:

        Not speculation that he was fired and not speculation that he was shot the year before. Not speculation that the gun was in his hand when he opened the door.

        • sundance says:

          ftsk420, don’t take this the wrong way (if possible) but you are way to emotionally engaged in this thread. You made your point about 20 comment replies ago.

          What gives?

          Is this something…, I mean,….. does this touch a sensitive historical nerve for you? You appear wound up tighter than piano wire. Maybe take a breath?

          • ftsk420 says:

            I’m not wound up at all you are right I did make my point and was gonna say that I have nothing more to say until I see more.

        • JAS says:

          …..Seems odd to me that this guy opened the door he knew what would happen or what could happen….

          Speculation.

          ……. I still say there is more to this then we are being told……..

          Speculation.

          There, happy now?

          J.

  15. sundance says:

    “Calloway’s father blamed the clerk for what happened to his son”.

    How come people can’t take responsibility for their own behavior. That’s like saying it’s the stores fault for putting TV’s on display and they get stolen by black boys who can’t control themselves.

    Interestingly the father is affiliated with Activist Quanell X who is advocating on behalf of Calloway. And considering “responsibility avoidance”, Quanell X is the same guy who said when an 11 year old girl was “gang raped” by 18 black men (aged 17-27) that she, the 11-year-old, did not do enough to stop it:

    [...] On Thursday, Quanell X, a community activist, traveled from Houston to help stage a town hall meeting called to address rising concerns — especially in Cleveland’s African-American community — about the case.

    Among other issues, he said that the girl didn’t do enough to stop the alleged assailants. “It was not the young girl that yelled rape. Stop right there — something is wrong, brothers and sisters,” Quanell X said. And, speaking over yells of support from the crowd, he also questioned the role of the girl’s parents. “Where was the mother? Where was the father?” he said.

    http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/03/14/texas.alleged.rape/index.html?hpt=Sbin

    • myopiafree says:

      Incredible – now they use the word, “Alleged rape”? So now they blame the girl and her parents?? What is wrong with these THUGS??
      +++++
      CNN) — The alleged gang rape of an 11-year-old girl has torn apart a Texas community, with some focusing on the girl and her parents as much as, if not more than, the 18 people accused of sexually assaulting her.

      “It is segregating our community,” Brenda Myers, the head of the Community and Children’s Impact Center in Cleveland, Texas, told HLN’s Vinnie Politan on Monday. “There’s a lot of anger, a lot of vicious remarks toward the little girl.”

      This month, police said 13 adults and five juveniles have been arrested related to their investigation of an alleged rape late last year in Cleveland, a community about 50 miles northeast of Houston.

      Darrell Broussard, Cleveland’s assistant police chief, said that the 18 individuals charged thus far are between 14 and 27 years old.

      On Thursday, Quanell X, a community activist, traveled from Houston to help stage a town hall meeting called to address rising concerns — especially in Cleveland’s African-American community — about the case.

      Among other issues, he said that the girl didn’t do enough to stop the rape.
      ++++
      What?? Against four thugs?? Did she profile them – so they raped her?? Why is Quanell X “concerned”?

      • I hear you Myopiafree, it’s just another perverted attempt at escaping responsibility by way of villainizing the victim. As far as their excuse; I don’t give a rats ass if the girl didn’t do enough to stop the rape. she’s an 11 year old child & doesn’t possess the capacity to consent to sexual activity. Every participating POS committed aggravated rape of a child under 12 years of age & aggravated sexual assault of a child. Unlike Saint Skittles, an 11 year old actually is a child. Though I hate to ask the question; Where’s Angela Corey’s evil overcharging clone from Texas because those 18 POS need to be convicted & sentenced to life in prison. It’s incidents such as the gang rape of an 11 year old girl that cause me to long for the return of frontier style justice.

      • thefirstab says:

        Question: Is the 11 y/o girl of another race? In my readings and research, the AA community only makes a stink about something if a white person or another un-AA race is involved. If she were black, we probably wouldn’t have heard about it. WHY are AA communities in such denial?

  16. Icestation2 says:

    All the clerk has to say is that after being absolutely smashed in the face he immediately felt extremely DAZED by the vicious attack and for a moment or two he genuinely thought his life was in danger.

  17. ftsk420, I’m not saying the clerk will not be found not guilty by a court. I’m saying the shooter will usually be arrested in a man-a-mano situation.

    This robbery occurred in one of the most affluent areas of the upper midwest, in a Minneapolis exurban community.

    http://www.startribune.com/local/west/94635514.html?refer=y

    Here is Massad Ayoob on whther to open the front door at 2am:

    • I remember the double murder of the Hanover professor & his wife, two pieces of shite, Tullock & Parker had gone to the door of a professor of political science posing as students conducting a survey. They had bought specialty combat knives from a magazine or something similarly bizarre. It’s ironic he mentioned the Dartmouth N.H. tragedy because earlier today I was reviewing N.H. murders due to the State Rep championing a campaign to abolish the N.H. death penalty.

  18. ftsk420 says:

    Allow me to apologize. If it seemed like I went off on a rant I’m sorry that wasn’t my intent. Won’t happen again.

  19. Ugh says:

    After the clerk opens the door words are exchanged, then clerk backs up a step and waves his hand as if saying come in, then AA guy steps forward and gets in clerks face. Then clerk steps forward and gets in his face. Any thing illegal to that point?

  20. Sentenza says:

    Why do parents want to blame victims for the crimes that their spawn commit?

    Look what happened with Trayvon Martin. It’s not his fault that he attacked George Zimmerman, because everyone knows that it’s perfectly normal to sneak around and look in random houses in the rain.

  21. IntergalacticBuffoon says:

    The store clerk was not fired from his job. Listen carefully to how the store owner words his statement…”For the sake of the community, we feel strongly that he will not be coming back to work.” The TV narrator suggests that the clerk was fired, but I do not get the same feeling from the owner’s comment. Considering the anger displayed by the local community, it would be foolhardy for the clerk to go back to work there whether he was fired or not. I think the clerk wisely chose to terminate his own employment.
    In other video interviews, Calloway’s (the man who was shot) father has been recorded saying that his son frequently used the store at which he was shot. Since Azzam (the clerk) has been at the store for at least a year (we know this from the story of him being shot a year ealier), it would be logical to deduce that it’s likely the two men knew each other. Despite their confrontation at the window, it is not illogical to unlock the door for a regular customer. Upon what seems to be Azzam’s invitation to enter the store, Calloway chose to get in his face continuing the argument. Whatever was said, Azzam chose to square his shoulders and force his ground right back in Calloway’s face….punch….pow.
    My only criticism of Azzam is that I would have held my weapon up to the glass before unlocking the door. I would want to make sure that Calloway and I were on the same page. I doubt that Calloway would have punched Azzam if he knew the weapon was present. My criticism of Calloway and his friends are too numerous to write in this forum and fairly self explanatory.
    I think the clerk had every right to react as he did. I think I would have reacted the same way; however, I would have made the weapon obvious.

    • Was the weapon holstered on the clerks left side? I didn’t see it in either of the clerk’s hands, nor did I see it on his right side when he unlocked & opened the door. So I don’t get how Calloway wasn’t aware of the weapon. You appear to be informed concerning the incident. Where did you find the information you’re using for reference? It’s appreciated if you could post a link to references

      • ftsk420 says:

        It looks to me like it’s in his left hand and he open the door with his right hand.

        • I watch it closer, I didn’t see it the first time.

          • ftsk420 says:

            I didn’t see it either the first time.

          • Oops: meant to type (I’ll watch it closer). I did watch it again but I can’t ascertain whether the weapon was in his hand when the door is opened or whether he pulled it during/immediately following the assault. I wondered if it was deja vu, the lack of video quality was akin to the sally-port video of George Zimmerman’s missing head injuries. Also: I saw this while searching – Alexander Calloway shot.
            By Michael Allen, Thu, November 29, 2012 Three young men were trying to enter a Valero gas station at 3:30 a.m. in Houston, Texas, this week, but the door was locked.
            The young men got into an argument with an unidentified clerk, who unlocked the door.
            One of the men, Alexander Calloway, punched the clerk in the face.
            In response, the clerk pulled out a gun and shot Calloway in the stomach, which was recorded on surveillance video…I don’t often trust journalist but if the author is accurate, I’d emphasize “in response, the clerk pulled out a gun”. My definition of “pulled out a gun” means to draw a weapon from it’s resting place, be it a holster, a waistband, a pocket or similar location. It’s likely the media has seen the complete video without the bottom left area being fuzzed out.

      • IntergalacticBuffoon says:

        Everything I wrote can be confirmed in the video on this page except for the deduction that Azzam and Calloway most likely knew each other….which is supported by video at this link:
        http://www.khou.com/news/local/HPD–Valero-clerk-shoots-man-who-tried-to-enter-store-after-hours-180852791.html

        • Thanks for the reply & the link, I do appreciate the effort. I searched the phrase Axexander Calloway shot, I read several articles including that which you provided the link for. I’m not surprised that the KHOU & other articles failed to mention that Calloways two accomplices shot the place up while making their exit or that the Race Hustling Profiteer Quanell X is attempting to pull the same White on Black crime bulls–t that the Travonites had attempted.

  22. akathesob says:

    One mistake here. Someone made it to the hospital.

    • Agreed: Dead Thugs can’t offer false testimony nor can they file bogus lawsuits.

      • akathesob says:

        Thank you. Sounds cold, but hey it is what it is.

        • It’s not cold, it’s the reality that law abiding gun owners are forced into live with due to the corrupted politics of racism & the anti gun crowd. Prior to the last couple of years, I’d have told anybody their crazy (I actually did on a YouTube comment forum) to even consider making sure you shoot to kill rather than to deter the threat. I’m slowly realizing that sticking around for the authorities may be detrimental to your health as well as that of your family. I’m going to watch this case just as I have George Zimmerman’s case because the decisions that I may have to make upon defending myself or another may very likely be influenced by these type cases. So far the government corruption pertaining to the Zimmerman case suggests to shoot em to the ground & don’t expect we really have any rights.

          • akathesob says:

            All true and darn well said.

          • Knuckledraggingwino says:

            If it can assure your anonymity, then:

            Shoot.
            Keep shooting.
            Shovel.
            Shut up.

            I like the scene in Casino where the mobster is talking about meetings in the dessert.

            Always have a hole already dug before you shoot someone. Someone else might come along while you are digging the hole, then you would have to shoot them to. You could be out in the dessert all night digging holes.

  23. bvc says:

    taking a gun to a fistfight again…

  24. bvc says:

    also, forget the law! look how FAT George Zimmerman is!!! this killing is eating alive whether he goes to prison or not. he is so FAT! suddenly very FAT!! OBESE! that usually does not happen so fast! his obesity is his self hatred and the guilt he can resolve with his own conscience !! sick!! pure sloth!!
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Commenters usually don’t reveal so much about themselves so quickly. Your comment reveals nothing about George Zimmerman. –Admin

    • I wish I could tell you where to shove your assessment of George Zimmerman but such a comment would be quickly moderated by the admin.

      • maggiemoowho says:

        Sounds like a blast from the past. Cecilia?

        • I noticed a few strangers were here to argue but I couldn’t say whether any were Cecelia. I held back while ftsk played along waiting for them to reveal their intent. They resorted to insults & appeared to seek retaliation but we’ve seen it all before. Not to hypocritically sling insults but simple things amuse simple minds & (I’m ducking while typing) there’s no simpler mind than that of a rabid blind dog. BVC couldn’t hold back from making the comparison to the Martin/Zimmerman tragedy & took a feeble parting shot at George. BVC could be Cecelia, I really don’t care who it is because they’re all the same to me.

    • John Galt says:

      Depression and taking anti-depressants can both cause weight gain. The effect on GZ’s health and state of mind is just another element of damage to be collected in the civil actions.

    • Sha says:

      bvc : One day you will wake up and end up eating those word’s. When you get fat… just remember there are power in words and you did it to yourself , you spoke your own fate.

  25. Hugh Stone says:

    Do yall realize that his homies shot the station up before taking to kid for help? That’s the reason for the aggravated assault charge. So there was a firearm present. The clerk might have saw it.

    • ytz4mee says:

      I am sure that only a small sliver of the truth is being sold by the Corporate Media, and that there is loads of “lying by omission” in this matter.

      I note that the clerk is not WASP. Wonder what new ethnicity the Media will create, ensuring that somehow the word “White” is part of the hyphenization of the clerk’s race.

  26. texan59 says:

    I work in Houston and am in this part of town quite often. It is not a real nice area. Any profiling you choose to do in conjunction with the street name is quite apropos. I do not go through this area after dark, nor would I advise anyone else to do so either. This is part of the hood, hood.

  27. LoudaJew says:

    this is a common practice for blacks to intimidate whites. Trayvon lived in North East Dade (Miami Gardens). I’ve seen quite a few African Americans drive into Aventura (a wealthy mostly white neighborhood with a mall) and start fights. Trayvon wasn’t so lucky. I think the idea is that whites are supposed to be afraid of blacks who can’t speak proper English. It’s a lesson to other Trayvon’s that you better be careful who you play the Knockout game with.

  28. sundance says:

    Judging by Time of Day, location of event, and physical properties surrounding the video, I summize:

    This is a convienient store who locks the door around 11pm for the night. All transactions then take place through a pass through drawer to the outside. The interior is secured for the safety of the employees working overnight in a high crime area. Such is customary.

    Most states now also have laws about a minimum of two employees being present in the building during this shift – there are exeptions permitted if certain security constructs (like a sealed bank teller behind counter safe-place) are in place. Sealed bullet proof glass etc. However, absent of these exemptions two employees must be on site at all times is the general rule in MANY states or local juristictions.

    That said, and accepted as possible in this scenario, I would anticipate the guy with the hat wanted something that was either: taking too long, or unavailable due to the lockout; hence the gesture when opening the door.

    Obviously the THUG, and he is obviously a THUG, was amped up prior to the door being opened, and figured he could just crack a head to showcase his angst in front of his crew of loyalists.

    Regardless of what was said, or not said, when the door was closed or opened, the act of a clear physical assault, *intent to harm no longer a guess* – permits the clerk to shot him dead based on perception of danger. Period.

    Could he have avoided shooting the thug? Dunno Looks like he might have been able to shove him backwards and lock the door again, but really is that the standard? NO. Could he have avoided the shooting by keeping the door closed? Dunno, was that an option?

    He was “on the clock” *as in* under the direct employment rules of his company/boss at the time of the incident. The slam the door in your face, or refuse to open the door, might not have been an option. What if refusing the open the door was evidence of his *cough* racism?

    What did the clerk do right? He only fired once – and vacated the immediate threat to himself and his co-worker.

    What did the clerk do wrong? He only fired once – and based soley on statistical FBI recidivism rates and analysis, he merely postponed the next attack onto someone else. Sad series of events.

    [Recidivism is the act of a person repeating an undesirable behavior after they have experienced negative consequences of that behavior]

    in my humble opinion ftsk420 is well intentioned, but profoundly wrong – unless more details change the descriptive as I interpret it.

    • ftsk420 says:

      Did he open the door with his gun in his hand cause it appears he did. I understand where you are coming from but in my opinion there is more to it then just that part of a video.

      • sundance says:

        The weapon *appears* (difficult to actually see with certainty) to be sheathed at the moment in the video.

        It appears, and again it is somewhat of a supposition, that the clerk has a zippered pouch sheath for the pistol, and it was unzipped and open, but the handgun remained inside it until his right hand approaches the weapon – and the video cuts out (stops).

        If my eyes and supposition are correct that would place the sheathed weapon either in his left hand, or in his waistband, with the opening facing his right hand for access….

        It just looks that way to me and there is nothing certain about my interpretation. FWIW

      • obsidian53 says:

        Opening the door is not a crime sucker punching the clerk was.
        If I am late, the store closes and the clerk opens the door for me I say, “Oh Thanks Man I really needed those items which I was desperate to have, your a good guy I love ya man!”
        I do not when facing the open door start sucker punching the clerk.
        The door being opened is not a crime.

        • Chip Bennett says:

          Opening the door is not a crime sucker punching the clerk was.

          The question was, “did the clerk open the door with gun in hand?”

          To say that “opening the door” is not a crime is a non sequitur. While brandishing may not be per se illegal in Texas, it could reasonably be construed as provocation.

          • obsidian53 says:

            If the clerk was in the store and is in fear of robbery then he can go to the door and open it with a gun in his hand. The clerk was where he was supposed to be legally. It is not illegal to carry a weapon in your bosses store, your house or property.
            The statement stands.
            It is not illegal to open a door, it is illegal to assault someone with your fist.
            The clerk had every right to open the door, being punched is the crime.

            • Chip Bennett says:

              If the clerk was in the store and is in fear of robbery then he can go to the door and open it with a gun in his hand.

              One, that’s a fairly major assumption, that remains unproven based on known evidence. We simply don’t know why he unlocked and opened the door. Again: if he opened the door to provoke/escalate the situation, then his reason for opening the door very much matters with respect to a self-defense claim.

              Two, opening a locked door to confront someone he suspected to be an attempted robber is an inherently reckless act, and could quite reasonably subject the clerk to criminal charges.

              Three, concealed and/or open carry are not at issue here (yet another straw man); rather, the issue is whether he opened the door with gun in hand, which could reasonably be construed as a provocation.

    • LoudaJew says:

      I agree. strangers need to keep their hands to themselves. sometimes these thugs will “try” the wrong person. they think they are BillyBadA**, and have a chip on their shoulder. the protestors always say he shouldn’t have shot him. I say, he shouldn’t have punched him. these thugs need to keep their hands to themselves.

  29. Treyvon II Brewing: White Gas Station Clerk Fired For Shooting Black Assailant, Black Panthers Call For Arrest. Thursday, November 29, 2012 21:10. Looks like this incident is heading towards another 3 ring circus guided by the latest race hustling profiteer. http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2012/11/treyvon-ii-brewing-white-gas-station-clerk-fired-for-shooting-black-assailant-black-panthers-call-for-arrest-2533168.html Source: http://patdollard.com

  30. Knuckledraggingwino says:

    Okay, my initial impression based on this EDITED tape that does not show the entire incident is:

    The clerk made a tactical error by opening the door.

    The clerk escalated to rapidly to use of deadly force in response to a failed assault that didn’t present a continuing risk of death or great bodily harm.

    My probable response to the sucker punch (which was ineffective because the clerk saw it coming and tensed his neck muscles) would have been to literally kick the manure out of the thug. (yes Virginia, you can beat someone so severely that they loose bladder and bowel control. I know, vie done it to people before).

    This being said, it appears that the clerk was attempting to be a nice guy by letting the thug purchase after hours. The thug elected to exploit that kindness to assault him.

    The tape is edited in a manner that leads us to presume that the clerk shot the thug immediately after the sucker punch. This might be true, then again it might not be true.
    Were there followup punches before the clerk shot the thug?
    Did the thug pull a knife or other weapon before the clerk escalated to shooting him?

    The limited duration and field of view of the video obscures the fact that the thug had multiple friends at the seen who took him to a fire station.
    Were these friends participants in the assault on the clerk that isn’t revealed by the brief, narrow field of view of this video?
    There obviously were other security cameras. Where is the video from them and what does the additional video show?

    My questions pertain to the probability that the thug who threw the first punch was participating in a conspiracy by lulling the clerk into unlocking the door so that he and his thuggy friends could storm in and rob the place. If the clerk had reason to believe that this was happening, then he absolutely acted appropriately.

  31. obsidian53 says:

    A one on one fight is not what blacks do, while the clerk was boxing with the perp his buddies would have stepped in and a mass beating would have occurred along with looting the store.
    I know it’s just supposition but we know this is what usually happens during a one on one fight in the streets.
    I don’t have to punch people to be a man and I don’t have to go boxing on the job with a disgruntled customer because to do otherwise is a disproportionate response.
    The clerk could have avoided this by simply calling the police and keeping the door closed, let the perp break the window if he wants.
    The entire event could have been avoided by the perp who should have just walked away and went shopping elsewhere at the very least he should have been grateful for the open door and not try to sucker punch the clerk.
    I blame the perp, he was the aggressor.

  32. obsidian53 says:

    I go to my door when visitors come knocking armed.
    In my pocket, in my hand or leaning against the door jam.
    If I know them I open my door, if I do not know them I talk through the CLOSED door.
    If it looks like trouble I call the Law who are 45 minutes away, I take their picture with my phone.
    If physically attacked I will do what I have to do to protect my life and my family.
    You folks can do what ever you feel like you gotta do.

    The person who is the criminal in this story is the one who attacked for no apparent reason a man who was in his place on his job who had no duty to retreat.

    • Chip Bennett says:

      You folks can do what ever you feel like you gotta do.

      Another straw man. Nobody here is arguing against the inherent right to self-defense, or to the justified use of deadly force in self-defense.

      The person who is the criminal in this story is the one who attacked for no apparent reason a man who was in his place on his job who had no duty to retreat.

      Another assumption: “for no apparent reason“. We simply do not know if that assumption is true or not.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s