TexasCHLforum.com

[IANAL_Holiday Inn Disclamer]
It may be that under North Carolina's judicial scheme the felony murder rule does not apply here because the death was not caused by one of the robbers/conspirators, but by an independent party who did not have any relationship to the robbers. Looking at a NC Supreme Court decision that references another NCSC decision, it appears NC's doctrine of felony murder uses agency theory rather than proximate cause. Agency theory says felony murder applies only when agents of the underlying felony crime (e.g. robbery) caused the death, not someone who was unrelated to the robbery itself (e.g. innocent armed victim). Proximate cause theory would hold that any death resulting from the robber's actions would be the responsibility of the robbers (with some further caveats).
[/IANAL_Holiday Inn Disclamer]

For example:

https://law.justia.com/cases/north-caro ... a91-0.html

This was in 1990. There may have been changes since then, I did not research it.

I see the story has been updated since I originally posted it. They have identified the wounded robber, and the police are reported to have definitively labeled the customer's actions as self-defense. As of yesterday morning they were still investigating.

Also I may have misread the original article. I wording led me to believe the robber robbed the customer, then pointed his gun in the clerk's face. It appears it may have really been that the robber stuck his gun in the customer's face, then turned his attention to the clerk, and the customer drew and fired.

chasfm11 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 7:59 am ...

Police say a gas station customer was acting in self-defense when he took matters into his own hands

perhaps I'm just overly sensitive to the phrase "took matters into his own hands" but that is not what happened. He responded to a potentially life threatening situation.

That phrase is a misdirection, I agree. I think the "journalist" added that.

chasfm11 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 7:59 am

"I believe in self-defense. It's certainly not something we like to see, but everybody has to make their own decision whether they're life is in danger or not," Sgt. Scharf said.

It is not something that I like to see either but this just happens to be another phrase that I believe masks an officer's feeling that "civilians" shouldn't have guns Again, I may be overreacting.

I didn't get that the officer was opposed to armed civilians, just that he does not like to see situations where someone had to make the decision and kill to survive. Would have to ask him some questions to be sure.

chasfm11 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 7:59 am

"They immediately went straight to him, pointed a gun at him, within inches of his face, very aggressively pointed a gun at him," Sgt. Brian Scharf with CMPD said.

My understanding of the law is that this part alone should cause an immediate dismissal of any investigation against the concealed carrier.

I don't believe the law says this. The police are obligated, and should, investigate the entire incident. It's not always clear what happened or what's important until you get all the facts documented. Then you apply the law.

chasfm11 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 09, 2019 7:59 am I was surprised that the surviving robber was not charged with murder.

Yet.

http://www.fox46charlotte.com/news/loca ... -killing-1

4 am. 7-11 gas station. Robbers rob customer, then point gun in face of clerk. Customer un-conceals “lawfully concealed handgun” and blasts both robbers. One DRT, one captured later.