Shooter of Bystander Won't Be Charged (Florida)

BARTOW -- Bradley Beck, the wounded robbery victim who shot an innocent bystander as he fired 17 shots at a suspected robber, won't face any criminal charges, a grand jury in Bartow decided Thursday.

Alearria Denmark, a 47-yearold special education teacher suffered two gunshot wounds when she drove up on the shooting scene. She testified before the grand jury and appeared shaken after Circuit Judge Ron Herring announced the jury's decision.

Denmark declined to speak with reporters at the courthouse. Reached later at her home in Lakeland she said the grand jury's decision was wrong and that State Attorney Jerry Hill mishandled the case.

"I can't see how (the State Attorney's Office) can't file charges on Mr. Beck . . . when a citizen can take the law into his own hands and shoot innocent people."

Denmark was wounded twice, near her spine and lower abdomen, and spent 11 days in Lakeland Regional Medical Center.

Beck, 50, who was shot in the head by an armed robber while working at Phillips' Photographers in Lakeland, also testified before the grand jury Thursday.

He left before the decision was announced but during a phone conversation later said he was relieved the criminal investigation was behind him.

"I regret that day ever happened," Beck said. "It would have never happened if he (the suspected robber) hadn't come into that store."

Beck said Denmark has been in his prayers since the shooting. "Since the day I was in the hospital, I've been asking about her."

Hill's decision to take the case to the grand jury was unusual. The grand jury generally reviews first-degree murder and corruption cases.

"On a rare occasion a case comes along that we believe the community needs to give us direction," Hill said. "It turns out this was a good decision."

Denmark was driving her van on Lenox Street about 11 a.m. June 29. Nearby, an armed robber entered Phillips' Photographers at 1505 S. Florida Ave. and demanded money from Beck, a longtime employee who was alone at the store.

Beck opened the cash register and gave about $100 to the robber, who also demanded Beck's wallet and car keys.

The robber ordered Beck to a back room and shot him, leaving a one-inch scar on his forehead.

The robber was later identified by police as Darrell Logan, 27, of Lakeland, who has served time in prison on an armed robbery conviction. After shooting Beck, Logan ran out the back door, police said. Beck, a target shooter, grabbed his Glock pistol from a holster he had in a briefcase and chased Logan.

From the rear of the building, Beck fired at least six shots at Logan, who ran toward South Florida Avenue. Beck followed Logan and fired more shots as Logan ran toward Denmark's van, which had reached the intersection of Lenox Street and South Florida Avenue.

Logan opened the sliding door of the van but was shot before getting inside, police said.

Police said Beck again opened fire, hitting Logan and Denmark twice. Logan collapsed and was on the ground when police arrived.

When he stopped firing, three shots had struck Logan, who didn't fire back. Investigators said his gun may have jammed inside the shop after he wounded Beck.

Five bullets fired by Beck hit Denmark's van and she was hit by two of the bullets. Two more bullets struck the side of a law office next to Phillips' studio.

On Thursday, Beck's lawyer, Rob Griffin, said Beck was worried that Logan might drive to his home, where his invalid mother was staying.

"He had his driver's license, his keys and his address," Griffin said. "He was concerned about his mother."

Logan faces charges of attempted firstdegree murder, armed robbery, robbery and battery. Logan spent more than two weeks at Lakeland Regional Medical Center and was transferred to the Polk County Jail infirmary July 16.

The State Attorney's Office received the case from Lakeland police detectives July 9.

"He would not have gotten another shot."

Given Mr. Beck's primary motivation of getting the SOB that shot him, I'm sure he would have been disappointed.

I guess I'd tend to think that was a pretty darned good motivation under the circumstances; others may differ.

If someone is snooping around your house at night, and flees as soon as they're aware they've been noticed, there's no way of knowing what their exact intentions were regarding you or anyone else. Part of the reason for the general prohibition against shooting fleeing criminals is that one cannot always be sure what the person was up to, or how much danger they posed to others.

In the extant situation, the man had just been shot in cold blood. Although I doubt he thought things through in detail, I'd say his gut instinct was right on: to do whatever he could to stop his shooter from getting away. Although his motives were far more personal than society-oriented (he did not want to die unavenged), I would suggest that as a citizen he had a right and duty to prevent the escape of someone who had willfully shown himself to be extremely dangerous.

Further, even if you judge that Mr. Beck's actions were unacceptable, I think there should be certain lattitude given to people who are forced into situations of extreme duress. Although I think the term "temporary insanity" is overused, I think it should be reasonably applicable to situations where a person was subjected to trauma outside their control and their judgement was impaired as a result.

To put it another way, even if it is found that Mr. Beck posed a danger to society shortly after he was shot in the head, that would not imply that under 'normal' circumstances he would be any danger to society, nor that the level of danger he posed was excessive compared with that posed by anyone else in the same circumstances.

Nearly anyone can 'snap' under the right circumstances. People have a duty to do what they can to avoid situations where they might 'snap'. People who voluntarily get into a situation that causes them to snap should be held accountable for their actions. But people who are involuntarily forced into a situation that would cause just about any normal person to 'snap' should not be held so accountable.

"Beck, a target shooter, grabbed his Glock pistol from a holster he had in a briefcase and chased Logan

The Glock in a holster inside his briefcase did not allow him to respond to the threat immediatly. Maybe had he drawn his weapon at the get-go, he wouldn't have hit the bystander. Hope he learned how useless his sidearm is when its tucked away in a briefacse.

Needless to say, his response was wreckless and could have killed innocent people. A target shooter should always KNOW where his shots are going to go. He missed his opportunity for self defense. What he did was "apprehend" the perp and injured an innocent in the process. Normally I applaud those who defend themselves..but not in this case.

"I would suggest that as a citizen he had a right and duty to prevent the escape of someone who had willfully shown himself to be extremely dangerous."

He did not however have the right to take a shot at that woman. It was entirely unjustified, regardless of what happened to him, or any claim of duty to prevent escape.

The right to life is absolute. Unless you can show the woman was not in Beck's sight picture, there is no justification for the particular string of shots that perforated both individuals twice.

" I think there should be certain lattitude given to people who are forced into situations of extreme duress"

Regarding this case, at trial and sentencing. He should have been indicted for reckless endangerment, or the equivalent. See once innocents enter the sight picture, you keep your finger off the trigger. The shot belongs to a marksman, not the pray and spray expert.

Unless you can show the woman was not in Beck's sight picture, there is no justification for the particular string of shots that perforated both individuals twice.

It's easy to armchair-quarterback, but I for one am inclined to cut the guy some slack. Though I would guess we probably differ in the answer to the $10,000,000 question:

Assuming the story played out as described, would you feel society is safer with this guy armed or disarmed?

I for one would prefer that he stay armed. His actions weren't perfect, but he could probably do better next time (e.g. plugging the bad guy sooner). There frankly isn't any way of judging how someone will perform in a situation like this until it actually arises, and while it's all very easy for someone to say they'd do things better, I really don't think anyone can know for sure.

Do you think Mr. Beck should be forever disarmed?

" Assuming the story played out as described, would you feel society is safer with this guy armed or disarmed?"

The world is better off allowing folks to defend themselves and insisting folks take responsibility for their actions. It is worse off when it fails to address self centered wrecklessness.

This self proclaimed target shooter failed the target shooting test. He's 3 for 17 and popped a woman in a hostage position with pray and spray. In the same string of shots he popped both twice. It's a good thing Beck's shop wasn't located in a mall. You might as well have cut him some slack and let him have grenades and RPGs.

I think Mr. Beck should have been charged with felony recklessness. Otherwise the use of grandes, RPGs for such action is valid. The fed law imposing lifelong across the board denial of rights to all felons regardless, is another question.

That could have been your wife, and babies in the back of that van. Do you want to get a phone call finding out they've all been plugged by a hero twarting the escape of a petty thug?

BTW, although Beck's lawyer would no doubt tell him to avoid this line of reasoning, I would posit another question: how should Beck have interpreted the act of Logan opening up the van? It seems to me that even with the benefit of retrospect there there were still only two interpretations:

Logan was about to enter the vehicle of an accomplice get-away driver. In this case, the driver would not be innocent and Logan would thus not be faulted for taking less care to protect her than he otherwise might.
Logan was about to enter the vehicle of an innocent person for the purpose of robbing and likely killing her (Beck knowing first-hand, of course, that Logan had no qualms about killing his victims). In this case, the alternative to Beck taking a risky shot would be the almost certain death of the innocent person.

I don't know if either interpretation played through in Beck's mind at all, but I can't see any interpretion of events, even in retrospect, where Beck's shooting at the van would have increased the likelihood of harm to an innocent compared with doing nothing.

"I can't see any interpretion of events, even in retrospect, where Beck's shooting at the van would have increased the likelihood of harm to an innocent compared with doing nothing."

You're focusing on negative possibilities as being appoximately a certainty. Once the others appeared in the target x-section, Beck should have backed off. It wasn't his call to take, unless he was certain of doing no harm. In any event he must accept responsibility for what damage he caused.

"Logan was about to enter the vehicle of an accomplice get-away driver."

Stretch. He's not even 50yds away. He can see what's going down. The woman probably screamed.

The motive here is payback. He wasn't doing anyone any favors by shooting at that van.

You're focusing on negative possibilities as being appoximately a certainty...

No doubt Beck was as well. And frankly, I think a reasonable person in his situation would have done likewise.

The vast majority of people have an aversion to killing others without provocation. Even the vast majority of robbers, who have no qualm about threatening others with death, have an aversion to actually killing their victims. Logan clearly demonstrated that he had none. Indeed, Logan had demonstrated that he had no qualms about killing even an entirely-cooperative victim; he was thus far more dangerous than a typical robber, as Beck was keenly aware.

Although it is quite plausible that, had it not been for Beck's earlier shots, Logan would have chosen someone else to be his next victim, I can't see that he's in any way to blame for his chosing Ms. Denmark. After all, if I inadvisedly take a 'hit' at a blackjack table and get a card that would have benefitted the next player, am I at fault for that person losing?

As another hypothetical, suppose that you are standing outside a restaurant and see that someone has lined up fifty people against the wall and is shooting one every few seconds. The shooter is between you and the innocent people. What do you do?

If you shoot at the murderer, you'll risk hitting one of the innocent people lined up against the wall. But every few seconds you tarry another of his victims will get shot. Do you wait until you can get a clear shot without anyone else in front of or behind the shooter, or do you say a quick prayer, take aim, and try for the best?

The fact of the matter is that while the notion of "first, do no harm" is often a good principle to live by, one who obeyed it slavishly would often be paralyzed. Like it or not, doing good sometimes requires risking doing harm because risk of harm is not always avoidable.

" If you shoot at the murderer, you'll risk hitting one of the innocent people lined up against the wall."

If you want to exercise the right to keep, bear and use arms, then you must learn how to use it and accept the consequences of your actions.

Your examplw plainly gives the reality of what is. Psychics and the like need not give their opinions. Folks are being shot one by one. The outcome is clear and there's only one way to end it. Beck didn't have any such certainty in the outcomes of his 2 possible choices.

" I think a reasonable person in his situation would have done likewise."

Pondering possibilities is BS. When there's bystanders DON'T FIRE UNLESS YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY SURE! If you fire then suffer the consequences.

Snap? Snap is what happens when you here some clymer, that blasts your vehicle, you, or your kids full of holes say, it's because he's trying to save you, your family and the world from harm. I don't care what goes through his mind all I give a damn about is that he don't shoot at me. That includes cops. I don't appreciate it and no reasonable person would either. If you don't mind being plugged in a pray and spray for salvation, fine. I mind, because it's deadly recklessness.

In my example, it's not 100% clear what would happen if you do nothing. The bad guy's gun might have just run out of ammo, or it may be that the bad guy only wanted to kill certain people, the last of whom he just had.

What's important is not that someone will, with 100% certainty, be killed if you fail to act, but rather that the probabilistic expected harm to innocents from action is clearly lower than the probabilistic expected harm from inaction.

Suppose Mr. Beck were clairvoyant, and knew that if he did nothing, Mr. Logan would flip two coins and if they both came up heads he'd let Ms. Denmark go uninjured and otherwise he'd kill her [i.e. there was a 75% probability that she'd be killed if he failed to act]. Further, he was very precisely aware of his marksmanship skills and knew that if he shot at Logan there'd be a 25% chance of Ms. Denmark escaping uninjured, a 25% chance of her escaping with non-critical wounds, a 25% chance of her being shot fatally by him, and a 25% chance of her being killed by Mr. Logan [if he gets away with her, he won't bother with the coin flip].

Under such circumstances, should he shoot or not? To be sure, there'd be a chance (6.25%) that his action would kill her when she otherwise would have lived, and also a chance (again, 6.25%) that her actions would result in Mr. Logan killing her when he would otherwise not have done, but despite those risks her probability of survival would have been doubled. In chart form:

Coin result	Shot result
Coin result	Escape uninjured	Escape injured	Killed by Beck	Killed by Logan
TT	Much Better	Better	Same	Same
TH	Much Better	Better	Same	Same
HT	Much Better	Better	Same	Same
HH	Same	Worse	Much worse	Much worse

If Mr. Logan decides to shoot, there's a 43.7% chance that Ms. Denamrk will be neither better off nor worse off than if he fails to act. There's a 37.5% chance she'll be better off (18.7% of her surviving uninjured when she would have died; 18.7% of her surviving, albeit injured, when she would have died). There's also an 18.7% of cases she'll worse off (12.5% that she'll die when she otherwise wouldn't, and 6.2% that she'll be injured when she otherwise wouldn't).

Suppose Mr. Logan knew those precise probabilities. Should he act or not act?

Now you may very well posit that he could not have known any of those probabilities nearly as precisely as I am suggesting, but I think he would have been quite right in judging that Mr. Logan had a very high probability of killing an innocent person if not stopped (higher than the 75% cited here), and that the risk to Ms. Denmark of being hit by a stray bullet was less than the risk she would have faced had Logan not been stopped (he might reasonably have guessed them lower than cited here).

The fact is that Mr. Logan was in a situation where any course of action he could take had a very high probability of turning out wrong. While he chose the course of action that would be more likely to result in him being blamed, sometimes that's what courage is about. If he'd held off on a shot he thought he could probably make, for fear of shooting Ms. Denmark, and Logan then proceeded to kill her, I don't think anyone would blame Beck for holding off but he'd nonetheless probably blame himself--moreso if something happened to his family.

Whether or not Mr. Beck's judgement was perfect, I certainly do not think it unreasonable.

"I certainly do not think it unreasonable."

That's why there are reckless endangerment laws. The woman was Beck's target also. He shot her. Once the woman entered Beck's sight picture, he should have backed off and let her handle it until such time as he had a clear shot, or the police show up. No one, including the police, have a right to shoot at innocent people like this. It's that simple. Either do it right, or don't do it at all.

Other people think it is extremely reckless for low skill people like Beck to run around in public making ad hoc life and death decisions in anger and blasting away. That's the wild west scene the grabbers whine about and Beck brought to life. You are responsible for where your rounds go. Make sure they do no damage. If you don't take that care and they do damage, then you must take responsibility for it.

"The innocent person happened to be in the line of fire."

If someone is in the line of fire and you shoot, you are shooting at them. Bullets follow the laws of physics, not the wishes and intents of the shooter's mind.

"It's entirely possible that he thought she was driving the getaway vehicle."

It's entirely possible that this action was all plot by the grabbers to stage a wild west show for their propaganda machine. Logan was really on a path to turn his life around. The grabbers only chose Logan, because his past fit the poor mistreated person profile and Beck, because he fit the angry gun nut profile. They drugged Logan and subliminally gave Logan Beck's address and promised there would be lots of cash there. They placed a touch of bromine and itching powder in Beck's shop and readjusted the thermostat, so that it was always hot in there. The grabbers did it.

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.