Posted on 10/12/2004 6:06:03 AM PDT by twas
A service station employee found himself on the wrong side of the law when he allegedly shot a suspected robber and ended up behind bars.
Michael J. Budd, 27, of Amherst Street, who was arrested Monday, is accused of grabbing the gun of Joseph P. Davis, 18, of East Ferry Street, chasing him and then shooting him in the left arm. Police said Davis was trying to hold up an Elmwood Avenue gas station Sunday night while Budd was working.
Davis, who was treated in Erie County Medical Center, was charged with two counts of robbery and criminal possession of a weapon. Budd was charged with second-degree assault.
Davis was being held in Erie County Holding Center on $5,000 bail. Budd also was being held there until he appeared in City Court before Judge Diane Y. Devlin and was released on his own recognizance.
Police on Monday said Budd was arrested because the shooting was unjustified.
"Under the penal law, a citizen has the duty to retreat if he or another person is not in imminent danger of being killed themselves or suffering serious physical injury," said Capt. Mark D. Morgan, commander of the Major Crimes Unit.
"Protecting yourself is one thing, but when there is no immediate threat to your safety, that's another," Detective Sgt. Philip Torre said.
This is not Budd's first brush with the law.
According to records, Budd was arrested Nov. 1, 1994, for holding up the Stop & Go gas station at 4100 Seneca St. in West Seneca.
Budd, then 17, of West Toulon Drive in Cheektowaga, allegedly walked into the gas station Sept. 25, threatened the gas station attendant with a knife and escaped with more than $200. The court outcome of that case could not be determined Monday.
On May 8, 1998, Budd, then 20, and his co-defendant, Aaron Wozniak, then 19, were indicted in the May 31, 1997, fire that caused nearly $1 million damage to a hangar and airplanes at the West Seneca airfield. Budd pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor trespassing charge and was sentenced to additional time in jail.
Police said events began unfolding Sunday about 8:24 p.m., when the robber entered Red Apple Food Mart at 157 Grant St. and pointed a handgun at the clerk. The gunman, wearing a black hooded shirt pulled over his eyes, told the employee, "Give me everything you got and get down," police added.
Police said that when customers began to arrive, the robber left empty-handed.
At 9:25 p.m., Davis entered Joe's Service Center/Sunoco gas, 1602 Elmwood Ave., at Amherst Street, pointed a gun at Budd's neck and demanded money, police said.
"The clerk was able to wrestle the gun away from the defendant, who fled the scene," Morgan said. "The clerk gave chase and fired two shots at Davis, striking him in the left arm with one."
Budd then chased Davis to the 200 block of Bedford Avenue, where Davis collapsed, police said.
When Northwest Officers Anthony McHugh and Shawn Dowell arrived at the scene, Budd handed them a loaded .40-caliber handgun.
Davis was taken to ECMC, where he was arrested. Budd was taken to Police Headquarters and arrested early Monday.
> We have permitted our elected prostitutes and the foul creatures they appoint to judgeships to turn us into a race of Morlocks.
Eloi, actually. The Morlocks were the ballsy ones... stupid, but ballsy. The Eloi were stupid AND neutered.
I guess you didn't see Spider-Man?
No I didn't. I'm guessing there's a joke here somewhere?
No, his big mistake was in reporting it.
Peter Parker's Uncle Ben was murdered by a fleeing robbery suspect that Peter had a chance to stop, but he didn't and the man got away. Later in the evening he shoots Uncle Ben. Of course it's just a comic book and a movie and has no relevance in real life. I'm sorry for bringing it up.
Chasing down and shooting violent felons is something the police do all the time, and usually without facing criminal charges. I'm for the same laws applying to police as to citizens. The justification given when police do it, is that if a violent felon escapes, he places other people at risk, and an officer is thus authorized to use force to stop him. Armed robbery, btw, is a violent felony.
You wouldn't walk up, kick a Grizzly in the crotch, try to run away, and be suprised when he chases you down and eats you would you? I could care less that the perp was no longer a direct threat and was running away. HE pointed a GUN at another human in an ATTEMPT to rob him FIRST. This completely negates his Right to continue breathing in my opinion.
This clerks ONLY error is in not KILLING the perp. Now the perp will have the chance to not only go out and commit more crime, but the resulting court case from this could provide more "legal" ammo for asshat lawyers to go after those who try to defend themselves from lawlessness.
Whatever happened to the whole concept of "justice"?
Someone running from you that just threatened your life with a loaded gun and now is fleeing because you took the gun away from him is a very real (and possibly deadly) threat. The would-be thief is likely to return for his property, or for simple revenge.
Bottom line, IMO, is that someone being injured in the act of committing a serious crime - or in the aftermath of committing a serious crime - is tantamount to a self-inflicted wound. Note that I said a "serious" crime, to differentiate from the "spitting in the subway" level of criminalized behavior.
I understand your points of view, but that's just not what I was taught in weapons training and I must disagree. Simply holding a weapon, or for that matter, holding a CHL does not make one a LEO.
There are several instances where the use of deadly force is authorized, such as to neutralize a deadly threat to your self or others.
A fleeing, unarmed felon is not such an instance.
Now if he were, say, kidnapping your daughter...
I was talking about the shooter not the shootee. I was talking about the clerk not the robber. I was talking about the guy who was a poor shot.
Gun control means hitting your target.
I was talking about the shooter not the shootee. I was talking about the clerk not the robber. I was talking about the guy who was a poor shot.
Gun control means hitting your target.
OK, I just slapped myself. Never, never make a double post.
That's who I was referring to: Budd, the clerk, shooter, nasty criminal past. Davis is the shootee, robber, perp.
Agreed on *gun control*. I have a private range at my 20ac garden center/nursery, and practice *gun control* on a semi-daily basis.
I have Jury Duty in Buffalo next week (yuk) maybe I'll be lucky and have this case (may be too soon). My verdict is Innocent and a suggestion to award the victim a medal.
Oh yes he is! Just maybe not at that moment. Do we just wait until he tries again? With your logic we do not have a right to attack terrorists until they attack us. JeffenK would be proud.
My gut reaction is that shooting the perp in the arm should get him sentenced to ten sessions at the range learning to hit the center of mass.
See #29
"Do we just wait until he tries again?"
If someone becomes a deadly threat, blow his head off.
The moment this perp was disarmed and running, he was no longer a deadly threat.
"With your logic we do not have a right to attack terrorists until they attack us."
Not at all. A single criminal hardly translates into global terrorism. This perp became legal issue, the WOT certainly is not!
Believe me. There are many FReepers who are LEOs and they will almost certainly agree with me here.
The city of Buffalo has been turned into a diversity plagued ghetto. The citizens are not allowed to stop a criminal because he as turned to run. One minute it is ok to shoot the next the perp is protected by the criminal criminal court system. The double criminal is intentional.
As has been pointed out already, I'm sure there are lots of people, LEO and otherwise, who agree with you.
So what? Sitting at a keyboard, reading about the things other people do what faced with difficult choices and then second-guessing them is too easy. Let someone stick a gun in your face and take all your money, credit cards and bravado, then come back here and tell us what THE LAW has to say about it. I, for one, don't care what the law says I should do in such a case as has been reported here. I'm guessing here, but I'm willing to bet I'm not in the minority here either.
As Cicero once said, "The good of the people is the chief law." Putting that piece of dung out of commission permanently would certainly be good for the people.
That perp was hardly disarmed - many cops carry multiple handguns, as you probably know. For all you know, he was running to take cover and return fire. He isn't disarmed until he's cuffed and searched. This would be a typical "good shoot" situation for any cop. I just wish the same standard applied to citizens.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.