AL: Wounded IHOP employee draws and kills man shooting in restaurant

[philip964]

https://news.yahoo.com/latest-police-wo ... 25703.html

Customer opens fire in IHOP and is killed by wounded employee who shot back.

[SQLGeek]

How can this be? We've been told by leftists that stopping an active shooter with a gun is a myth.

Hope the employee recovers fully.

[OneGun]

Why have a GJ? Clearly it was self-defense.

[longtooth]

And we go to IHOP nearly every week. I will be there for a coffee visit this afternoon.
Carry 24-7 or guess right.

[WildBill]

Why have a GJ? Clearly it was self-defense.

https://www.alabamacriminalandfamilylaw ... explained/

[ELB]

One employee was killed. The other, the son of the first employee, was wounded but shot back and killed the rampaging customer.

https://www.al.com/news/2019/01/roys-wi ... orker.html

[KLB]

Why have a GJ? Clearly it was self-defense.

I can only speculate, but if the decedent was a member of a racial or ethnic minority, refusing to prosecute the shooter can lead to protests and political problems for the prosecutor. On the other hand, if a grand jury no-bills, then the prosecutor can shrug and point to the grand jury.

Of course, the grand jury process is secret, so the public won't know the prosecutor most likely presented only exculpatory evidence and recommended a no bill.

Politics.

[Keith B]

Alabama law requires a GJ to review potential felony cases. A homicide, which is what was committed by the guy defending himself, is a felony. Many states require the GJ review the case and the DA can't just say it was a good shoot.

[Soccerdad1995]

Alabama law requires a GJ to review potential felony cases. A homicide, which is what was committed by the guy defending himself, is a felony. Many states require the GJ review the case and the DA can't just say it was a good shoot.

Not to nitpick, but a homicide, by definition, may or may not be a criminal act. So to say that "a homicide, which is what was committed by the guy defending himself, is a felony" is a bit inaccurate, I believe.

IMHO, states should apply some common sense here. After all, arson is a felony, yet a GJ is not required to review all house fires, even though each and every one is a potential felony, absent exculpatory evidence. I believe that all "potential" felonies should be investigated and if there is sufficient evidence that an actual felony may have occurred, then by all means, convene a GJ. But convening a GJ every time there is an occurrence that could possibly have resulted from a felony act is not only a waste of time and money, but is also an unreasonable burden on the citizens of a state.

After all, executing a convicted felon fits the definition of "homicide" and could theoretically be a felony, if the execution wasn't actually authorized. But I highly doubt that Alabama, or any other state, convenes a GJ every time it carries out an execution (and lets not give the libs any ideas there).

[philip964]

Imagine there was no good guy with a gun. 6 dead 10 dead?

It would be national news. Splashed everywhere. Anti gun advocates, saying take guns away from honest people.

Instead a good guy with a gun.

Crickets chirping!

[OneGun]

Why have a GJ? Clearly it was self-defense.

https://www.alabamacriminalandfamilylaw ... explained/

thank you!

[philip964]

Important where you live. CA, OR, NY, NJ, wounded man would be arrested and DA presenting it to a GJ, who most likely would want a trial, especially if there was any racial or gender component, just to be sure.

[Keith B]

Alabama law requires a GJ to review potential felony cases. A homicide, which is what was committed by the guy defending himself, is a felony. Many states require the GJ review the case and the DA can't just say it was a good shoot.

Not to nitpick, but a homicide, by definition, may or may not be a criminal act. So to say that "a homicide, which is what was committed by the guy defending himself, is a felony" is a bit inaccurate, I believe.

IMHO, states should apply some common sense here. After all, arson is a felony, yet a GJ is not required to review all house fires, even though each and every one is a potential felony, absent exculpatory evidence. I believe that all "potential" felonies should be investigated and if there is sufficient evidence that an actual felony may have occurred, then by all means, convene a GJ. But convening a GJ every time there is an occurrence that could possibly have resulted from a felony act is not only a waste of time and money, but is also an unreasonable burden on the citizens of a state.

After all, executing a convicted felon fits the definition of "homicide" and could theoretically be a felony, if the execution wasn't actually authorized. But I highly doubt that Alabama, or any other state, convenes a GJ every time it carries out an execution (and lets not give the libs any ideas there).

But you did nitpick.

I meant to say again a 'potential' felony.

[aero10]

I can only speculate, but if the decedent was a member of a racial or ethnic minority, refusing to prosecute the shooter can lead to protests and political problems for the prosecutor

Ding ding ding, we have a winner. Also, shot someone previously.

https://www.al.com/news/2019/01/huntsvi ... tomer.html

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2011/10/man ... ay_ni.html

Imagine there was no good guy with a gun. 6 dead 10 dead?

It would be national news. Splashed everywhere. Anti gun advocates, saying take guns away from honest people.

Instead a good guy with a gun.

Crickets chirping!

With no good guy, it still wouldn't fit the story line to make national news. Minority with previous weapons charges.

[Deltaboy]

No national coverage!