8 Responses to “Indictment sought in Baskin Robbins case”

1. posted by Jeff E. at September 28, 2007 9:20 am :
   

   I’m not sure what the maximum sentence for this charge is however I think it may be a good compromise. I cheer Mr. Fielding for taking a stand and defending his business but at the same time the circumstances (i.e. shooting the thief in the back) make this case more complicated than it might have been. I do hope that area thugs who think our neighborhood is ripe for robbery will think twice about it now knowing the person behind the counter just might be armed.

2. posted by Matt at September 28, 2007 10:47 am :
   

   Just another waste of tax dollars going to prosecute a upstanding citizen instead of spending this money to put thugs in jail. If they won’t protect us, at least they shouldn’t prosecute us for protecting ourselves.

3. posted by Bert Berlin at September 29, 2007 2:21 pm :
   

   Citizens, just like the police, cannot use deadly force simply because someone is involved in a property crime. It depends on what is going on. Was it reasonable for the manager at BR to believe that his life or that of his coworkers was endangered by the robber. When the robber fled from the store, was there any justification to continue shooting? I think that if the grand jury indicts and the manager is convicted on the gun use charge he is getting off easy. If the evidence indicated that the fatal shot was fired after the thief left the store the proper charge would be homicide.
   I hate to see criminals operating in our neighborhood. However, killing them is not the solution. When a person is committing a crime for which the penalty is imprisonment, there is no justification for an armed civilian to impose the death penalty.

4. posted by John at October 1, 2007 11:31 am :
   

   The robber got what he deserved. He was in the wrong. Good shooting.

5. posted by r at October 9, 2007 8:18 am :
   

   “Was it reasonable for the manager at BR to believe that his life or that of his coworkers was endangered by the robber. When the robber fled from the store, was there any justification to continue shooting?”

   absolutely…..this was a perfect case of preventative crime control….
   And while you are playing “what if” then perhaps the next time the criminal,emboldened by the lack of any citizen resistance to this “property crime” ( remember there were people involved when the gun was being waved about by the outlaw), would make the mistake of shooting someone.
   This one particular fellow ( and others like him that can read a newspaper) will never terrorize the citizenry again.
   We have a responsibility and a God given right to protect ourselves….the police can’t do it all.

6. posted by tiny at October 9, 2007 12:42 pm :
   

   What has happened is a tragedy for all involved. For the young man, his life is in crisis, he may feel some guilt at taking a life, and he could potentially be convicted and sent to jail, at only 21. At least, he is only be charged with recklessly discharge a gun which is a LOT less than murder or manslaughter.

   For the thief, he, of course is dead, and all of his family is affected by this. Everybody is someone’s child, brother, uncle, father, etc. And all for a couple bucks. A bad decision that irrevokably changed his and so many others lives.

   All human life is valuable. What if he were your child, either the shooter or the robber?

7. posted by John at November 15, 2007 9:48 pm :
   

   The store manager was justified in shooting even though the robber was running away. You wouldn’t ignore an unlocked gate to a swimming pool when children are nearby. You wouldn’t disregard an uncovered manhole without trying to notify passers by of the hazard. If there was a rabid dog in the neighborhood you would try to kill or contain it to prevent potential harm to others. Why would you let someone that threatened innocent people with a gun get away to potentially harm others? The store manager should be given a ceremonial key to the city or some other recognition. The hassle that he endured at the hands of government officials was shameful.

8. posted by Lesley at November 16, 2007 10:38 pm :
   

   The thing is, that is not how our laws are written. I agree that this gentleman should be forgiven for killing this man, but I also agree with the decision to go ahead with the indictment. The use of deadly force should only be used when you’re in fear of your life. The manager certainly was, but not *technically* when the assailant had turned and fled. He shot the robber in the back. Would I have done the same thing? Oh hell yes! But I am glad that the legal system worked like it did. I for one wouldn’t have felt comfortable that the police rested on the fact that the shooter was a multiple offense criminal and “deserved” it. That may be the way the general public feels, but our system needs to be objective, not subjective. I think justice was served in this case.

Leave a Comment