That is exactly my point. I do not know that the crook had it. I only know the shooter says he had it. If the police have the gun, then I would know the shooter told the truth. But there is no mention of in the story.
Sorry, then - I did not understand you. You want to find out from the story if the kid actually had a gun, and are looking for the reporter to provide details to confirm that he did.
I would expect that if the kid didnt really have a gun, they would have arrested the shooter. But
(Emphasis added.) I don’t know why they would be looking at video to see if he had the gun if they had recovered one at the scene.
Although maybe I am reading too much into it. Perhaps the police are reviewing the video to see if he showed them a gun, or what appeared to be a gun.
But the story certainly reads as if there was little doubt the kid showed a gun in the course of trying to steal the shoes, and the only question was whether the shooter was justified in firing even though the kid did not point the gun at him. But I don’t know that for sure.
Regards,
Shodan
Not everything you listed as a “detail” is accurate, you know.
My old copy of “How to own a gun and stay out of Jail” mentioned 3 to 1 odds as being reasonably in fear of your life from unarmed assailants. At least in CA last I checked the robber would not have needed to have a gun for the victim to use deadly force in defending himself.
Apparently, there was a gun. Not 100% confident in the source, but the image looks fairly convincing.
There’s video of it?
I searched before my first post (and my google-fu is admittedly weak) and all I could find were sites with the same AP story.
‘Police recovered a handgun at the scene.’ That’s all I’m looking for. Because if they didn’t recover a gun at the scene, then this is a whole other story.
Handguns have a way of disappearing…
Or aren’t there anymore “throwdown” guns?
Police would have a second (or third) pistol - one that couldn’t be traced, obviously, to place beside the corpse of the unarmed guy he just killed and then claim the decedent had pulled a gun on him.
A google of “throwaway pistol police” produced over 8,500,000 hits - this is not just a theory.
Yes, and that happens when a cop shoots someone. Cops do not, in general, waste one of their valuable throwdown guns on a civilian shooter.
I’m seriously bewildered as to the response here. The police here are under intense public pressure due to the shooting in WalMart a few weeks ago (in fact, we had a protest today in the mall, and had to close the kiosk for close to an hour), but this shooting, by a civilian, is receiving a public reaction of, “Justified.”
Believe it or not, there are 16-year-old black kids out there attempting to commit armed robberies. Not many, but some. This, by all the evidence so far, was one of them.
IANAL, but it seems to me whether the gun was pointed at the intended robbery victim or just tucked into the intended robber’s waistband, it was an armed robbery. And come to think of it, the 2 accomplices can be charged with felony murder. I don’t know what sort of “stand your ground” laws they have in Ohio.
There isn’t that much news coverage over 16-year-old-black kids that don’t commit armed robberies or try to steal cops’ firearms. There’s a kid like that just across the street from me. He hasn’t attempted to rob or murder me as long as I’ve lived here. Maybe I should call the local news about him?
That’s where what little public pressure there is here is coming from. The father of one of the other kids is saying that he and his ex gave their son money for the shoes, and sent him off to the mall. That his son just happened to be there with someone he knew who did something stupid and was not involved in a robbery.
Frankly, that makes some sense to me. Why would three kids conspire to steal one pair of shoes?
Not a theory but not as common as it once was say 30 or more years ago. With modern forensic techniques (and I mean the real stuff and not the TV version) the chances of dropping a gun on someone and getting away with it are really really slim. It’s hard to pack something around day after day until you actually need it and not leave some trace of yourself on it.
And on an unrelated (to the above) note ----- I seem to remember shooting folks for their shoes first really popping up around Christmas maybe? In like 1976 or 77? Memory says it was those all red British Knights. I would say this takes the nostalgia of the season to an extreme I would have preferred skipping.
I believe - not sure - that they are kind of average. What he does have is a CCW in a state with tougher CCW laws. You have to go through a series of classes and training to even be considered. Unlike some states (PA for example) where it is just a matter of paperwork. Here, if you can legally own a handgun, you can carry - no training or special background check required.
Your mileage may vary but I and my friends, around the same age, did plenty of stupid stuff that made no sense after the fact. Nothing this level of criminal but equally stupid.
No video of the shooting. The shoes were purchased at an indoor mall. The shooting occurred at store at the mall that had both indoor and outdoor access and it occurred outside.
From what I understand the shoes were sold using some kind of lottery system. According to the father of one of the kids under arrest his son was given the money to buy the shoes. That means the reason they were at the mall was to get the shoes.
If the deceased intended to rob someone of the shoes there will be interior video showing them casing the shoe store and it’s patrons. That would implicate the other 2 as accomplices if they followed the purchaser to the parking lot. The store in question is located next to one of the mall exits.
It’s logical to assume they followed the purchaser. Even if the other 2 didn’t plan on robbing anyone they participated in the act. If they claim they didn’t know he had a gun then their actions at the time it was brandished will be (IMO) an important factor in any charges brought against them.
Another Daytonian here. In fact, my first job was at the Dayton Mall.
Kid engages in armed robbery. Kid gets shot. End of story. As noted by Frank, the public (around here) has been overwhelmingly supportive of the shooter.
Even if it was a “good” shoot - and all indications so far seem to support this - I feel bad for the shooter.
I*** always*** carry a weapon when I’m out shopping. But I hope & pray I never have to use it. Even if it’s completely legal and justified, killing another human will affect you the rest of your life. And not in a good way.
The news article in the OP mentions mall surveillance video. I don’t know if it is available to the public.
Regards,
Shodan
FTR, I was quite surprised to learn that Air Jordans are still a “thing” in the black community. I guess I assumed that that fad had waned years ago, but apparently not.
no, still quite the fad. If it wasn’t shoes it would be something else.
When I was a kid we would have laughed at anyone who spent $200 on shoes. I guess it’s how you’re raised to look at life in general.
I am not a gun owner but here in Texas the citizen’s right to blaze away for almost no reason is zealously protected, castle doctrine permits us to shoot and kill anybody (excepting uniformed law enforcement) messing around on our property at any time, extending even to a car parked out on the street, and our stand your ground permits the use of deadly force w/o retreating 1st if you feel physically threatened whether the assailant is armed or not. Law enforcement advises us to shoot to kill in these situations so there will only be one side to the story. A white homeowner near Dallas shot and killed a young black man who was in his neighbor’s yard a couple years back and wasn’t charged, so it’s incredibly broad. Hasn’t led to a whole lot of mayhem, though.