Kroger killing

Discussion in 'Conceal & Open Carry' started by sbg2340, Dec 27, 2011.

  1. sbg2340

    sbg2340 New Member

    Monday night ( 12-26-2011 ) a man walks into a local kroger store , and trys to rob a young lady and possible the store, and a employee steps up with his gun ( shoots fired ) on kroger property, shoots him in the head which resulted in the killing of the robber.

    Need i say more, the employee of the kroger store is not facing any charges for the shooting , but based on KROGERS policy on their employees carrying handguns on the property , he will most likely loose his job, Good job on stoping the robbery but sorry for your job lost.


    IC 35-41-1-11
    "Forcible felony"
    Sec. 11. "Forcible felony" means a felony that involves the use or threat of force against a human being, or in which there is imminent danger of bodily injury to a human being.
    As added by P.L.311-1983, SEC.12.





    IC 35-41-3-2
    Use of force to protect person or property
    Sec. 2. (a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person:
    (1) is justified in using deadly force; and
    (2) does not have a duty to retreat;
    if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.
    (b) A person:
    (1) is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person; and
    (2) does not have a duty to retreat;
    if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other person's unlawful entry of or attack on the person's dwelling, curtilage, or occupied motor vehicle.
    (c) With respect to property other than a dwelling, curtilage, or an occupied motor vehicle, a person is justified in using reasonable force against another person if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to immediately prevent or terminate the other person's trespass on or criminal interference with property lawfully in the person's possession, lawfully in possession of a member of the person's immediate family, or belonging to a person whose property the person has authority to protect. However, a person:
    (1) is justified in using deadly force; and
    (2) does not have a duty to retreat;
    only if that force is justified under subsection (a).
    (d) A person is justified in using reasonable force, including deadly force, against another person and does not have a duty to retreat if the person reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or stop the other person from hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight. For purposes of this subsection, an aircraft is considered to be in flight while the aircraft is:
    (1) on the ground in Indiana:
    (A) after the doors of the aircraft are closed for takeoff; and
    (B) until the aircraft takes off;
    (2) in the airspace above Indiana; or
    (3) on the ground in Indiana:
    (A) after the aircraft lands; and
    (B) before the doors of the aircraft are opened after landing.
    (e) Notwithstanding subsections (a), (b), and (c), a person is not justified in using force if:
    (1) the person is committing or is escaping after the commission of a crime;
    (2) the person provokes unlawful action by another person with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
    (3) the person has entered into combat with another person or is the initial aggressor unless the person withdraws from the encounter and communicates to the other person the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or threatens to continue unlawful action.
    (f) Notwithstanding subsection (d), a person is not justified in using force if the person:
    (1) is committing, or is escaping after the commission of, a crime;
    (2) provokes unlawful action by another person, with intent to cause bodily injury to the other person; or
    (3) continues to combat another person after the other person withdraws from the encounter and communicates the other person's intent to stop hijacking, attempting to hijack, or otherwise seizing or attempting to seize unlawful control of an aircraft in flight.
    As added by Acts 1976, P.L.148, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1977, P.L.340, SEC.8; Acts 1979, P.L.297, SEC.1; P.L.59-2002, SEC.1; P.L.189-2006, SEC.1.
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2011
  2. rivalarrival

    rivalarrival Are we there yet?

    I'd love to see some confirmation over whether or not he's going to lose his job. I know it happens - and frequently - but it seems like this should be grounds for a wrongful termination suit.
     

  3. KeenansGarage

    KeenansGarage Hiding in plain sight....

    I like your state's legal description. I too, would like to know the outcome of the employee. I work for the gov't, so I don't get to carry not matter what....at work at least.
     
  4. sbg2340

    sbg2340 New Member

    No Charges file

    Although this young man did a good thing in stopping a robbery from taking place , krogers hands are tied, this young man will lose his job, because kroger has a " NO GUNS AT THE WORK PLACE POLICY" And on that and that alone is why he will lose his job . I still say Good Job.



    INDIANAPOLIS -
    The Kroger employee who shot and killed a robbery suspect last month will not face any charges, the Marion County prosecutor said Wednesday.
    Prosecutor Terry Curry says he's reviewed the case involving Elijah Elliott and has determined there is no basis for any charges to be filed against him.
    Kroger says it's still reviewing the case and hasn't made a decision about disciplinary action against Elliott. The company released this statement Wednesday:
    "Kroger expresses our appreciation to the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department, Marion County Prosecutor's office and the community for its support during the past ten days. This has been a very stressful time for our Kroger family. The company has an ongoing internal review. There is no specific timeline for the completion of our review and we have no further comment at this time."

    Witnesses say that on Dec. 26 at around 6:00 pm, Jeremy Atkinson walked into the Kroger on West 71st Street. He's seen on surveillance video wearing a gray hoodie with his right hand tucked into his pocket.
    According to witnesses and surveillance footage, Atkinson walked up behind an unarmed security guard and stuck an object in her back, ordering her into the back office. As the two walked towards the office, a second Kroger employee was leaving the office and saw Atkinson holding the security guard in a headlock. Atkinson was wearing a mask.
    The second employee told police that Atkinson grabbed her a choke hold and had her up against a wall. That employee yelled for Elliott. When Elliott responded, Atkinson let go of the woman and charged at Elliott, who shot Atkinson.
    The Marion County prosecutor says under Indiana law, the shooting was justified to prevent the commission of a forcible felony (robbery and criminal confinement) and based upon Indiana law pertaining to self-defense and defense of others.
    At the time of the attempted robbery offense, Jeremy Atkinson had an outstanding warrant out of Marion Criminal Court 1. In that case, Atkinson was charged with Robbery, as a Class B felony, as well as multiple counts of criminal confinement. He received a six-year executed sentence on that case and had been released to community corrections. He violated community corrections, and on February 24, 2011 a warrant was issued for his arrest. That warrant was outstanding at the time of this incident.
     
  5. iGlock

    iGlock Lead Farmer

    It all comes down to whats important, peoples lives or a job. Anyway, i say good job to the guy.
     
  6. sbg2340

    sbg2340 New Member

    Yes your life is more important than any job you might hold,and the laws that protect the law abiding citizens are changing slowly as we speak, slowly but there changing, and we as those law abiding citizens have to stay the corse and fight those who would take away our ability to defend ourselves.
     
  7. iGlock

    iGlock Lead Farmer

    Yea your right, our rights and freedom are being taken away very slowly.
     
  8. GAgal

    GAgal Well-Known Member

    1,000
    94
    And the really scary thing is that most people don't even realize it.
     
  9. iGlock

    iGlock Lead Farmer

    That is so right...trying to tell younger people than me (im 25) and they are like clueless about it and im like wow really...
     
  10. sbg2340

    sbg2340 New Member

    I didn't say are rights or freedoms are slowly being taken away, our rights are changing slowly for the better, and we must continue to fight those who would try and take them from us.
     
  11. iGlock

    iGlock Lead Farmer

    Same difference lol u know what i mean.
     
  12. Good for him. I do hate he's losing his job though. If I had a local business I would reach out to him and hire him. Saving a life is far more important than that job.
     
  13. IndyProstreet

    IndyProstreet New Member

    68
    0
    And Kroger at one time hired and helped officers maintain there Police Powers....
     
  14. Levelcross

    Levelcross New Member

    547
    1
    True most likely, he will loose his job. He should receive a reward and weeks paid vacation from Kroger.

    sbc2340, so true also, we are loosing our rights almost daily. Locally the Parks and Recreation Dept. is trying to decide if legal gun owners can carry in the parks or not. First of all, how is this going to stop the convicted felon with a gun, second, who gave these people the right to decide on my right to carry a gun legally.
     
  15. Sarabian

    Sarabian Slightly Opinionated

    The bad part is that if it hadn't gotten all the publicity it has, they could have easily just ignored it and gone on. Now that it's national news I think he's done for.
     
  16. Happysniper1

    Happysniper1 New Member

    13,460
    6
    It's a sad truth that the amount of antigun workplace paranoia has slowly but invariably been rising.

    I worked for a bulk petroluem distributor (the largest in Nevada) that also owned and ran 37 gas station/convenience stores all over Northern NV. I worked in the IT Department, but I carried concealed (since I had a CCW), and had a company car and carried in it as well, everywhere I went. Then the company was sold to a California investment banker and they got all "big-corporation" on us, 10-person HR staff and all that (we had 2 people in HR before). When the new employee guidebook came out, it made no mention of carrying of deadly weapons on the premises. I made the mistake of asking HR (yah, I loved my job too much to slip up and risk loosing it) and they suddenly came out with a no firearms policy and a no-resistance-during robbery policy. I left the gun in the car, even though it was a company car. Some months later I had a chance to invite the owner of the company, his brother and his inner circle of advisers, to go to a machinegun shoot. They came, were impressed, and even commented on the strictness of the range safety procedures (step behind the white line and no crossing the yellow line on the pavement during a range break, and RSO's ready to yell cease-fire for safety concerns, etc.). Being from the Communist Republic, they were antigun but without specific reason. We had a few more shooting trips and lotsa talks about guns (uncomfortable at first, having beers with the owner of the company and not having my department head around).

    About a month after that, the company rules changed: CCW permittees were allowed to carry on the property. CCW permittees at the stores were allowed to employ deadly force during a robbery only if it is clear that staff or customers were under immediate deadly force threat.

    Did I manipulate the situation? You bet I did! Did it work? As far as I am concerned it did. California business owners in Nevada need to understand that this is still part of the Wild Wild West.
     
  17. IndyProstreet

    IndyProstreet New Member

    68
    0
    Good for you! The more people understand firearms the better. We are not all gun toteing psychopaths.
     
  18. Happysniper1

    Happysniper1 New Member

    13,460
    6
    Ah, but I must confess: it delights me when people I do not like (and they don't have to scumbags, either) are afraid of me because it is whispered that I carry a gun all the time. Heh-heh-heh <evil grin>
     
  19. sbg2340

    sbg2340 New Member

    our rights


    I didn't say are rights or freedoms are slowly being taken away, our rights are changing slowly for the better, and we must continue to fight those who would try and take them from us.