Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Shooter of Bystander Won't Be Charged (Florida)
Lakeland Ledger ^ | July 23, 2004 | John Chambliss

Posted on 07/23/2004 7:07:35 PM PDT by Mulder

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."

"No one questions what happened to Ms. Denmark was a tragedy," Hill said.

But he said "a trial would have never reached a decision of guilty."

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.

Lakeland police gave this account of what happened:

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.

In all, Beck fired 17 shots, police said.

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.

The remaining bullets are unaccounted for, according to police.

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.

Police Chief Roger Boatner did not return a phone message Thursday.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: bang; banglist; justice; rhodesia; selfdefense
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-119 next last
To: zoyd
Pretty harsh comment directed towards an innocent victim there

From the shooters point of view, it could have looked like the perp was climbing ing the get-a-way vehicle. Might throw your presumption of innocence argument in the trash.

41 posted on 07/23/2004 9:59:18 PM PDT by tbpiper (Michael Moore…..the Erich von Däniken of political documentary)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: kaboom
1) A speeder is not the same as an attempted murderer.

True but irrelevant. Logan's culpability is not the issue here.

2) Criminals are now using the police non-pursuit regulations to commit more crimes and drive away faster and eventually kill more people.

Prove it. And even if so, the police are morally responsible for their actions, including when they incite accidents.

3) Beck had already been shot.

So, if I've been shot, I can shoot you with impunity?

4) There is no evidence to prove that the perp attempted the carjacking solely because of Beck.

Given the evidence in the record, it's the most likely interpretation. It's not necessary to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, since the standard in a civil case is simply preponderance of the evidence.

5) some situations just plain suck, you will be victimized, and you can't cash in on them.

Yes, that's true--as Beck can certainly tell you from personal experience.

42 posted on 07/23/2004 10:05:36 PM PDT by sourcery (This is your country. This is your country under socialism. Any questions? Just say no to Socialism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SUSSA
If Denmark sues, I hope the jury considers that Mr. Beck probably saved her life.

He could just as easily have killed her. By shooting her, he put her in at least as much danger as Logan would have--and there is no reason to believe that Logan would have attempted to carjack Denmark's van, but for the actions of Beck.

43 posted on 07/23/2004 10:10:20 PM PDT by sourcery (This is your country. This is your country under socialism. Any questions? Just say no to Socialism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: sourcery

Counselor, you are trained in twisting both the facts and the law to conform to which ever side of a case you are on, and are doing a good job of that here. My hope is the civil jury is as astute a the Grand Jury and this whining bureaucrat doesn’t get a dime from Mr. Beck.


44 posted on 07/23/2004 10:18:27 PM PDT by SUSSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: sourcery

"However, Mrs. Denmark is fully entitled to civil compensation by Mr. Beck for her injuries, pain and suffering."

All responsibility should fall upon the thug, Logan. Of course, Logan doesn't have any money. Mr. Beck's employers however have insurance and "deep pockets." The lawyers will dictate who gets sued by whom.


45 posted on 07/23/2004 10:24:55 PM PDT by PLMerite ("Unarmed, one can only flee from Evil. But Evil isn't overcome by fleeing from it." Jeff Cooper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sloth

LOL!


46 posted on 07/23/2004 10:36:47 PM PDT by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

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

I have a feeling this was an after thought by his attorney...a good one I must admit. I think Mr. Beck actually dodged two bullets in this deal. It sounds like he got a little wild with the chase and the shooting but all things considered, I'm glad he got the perp and avoided prosecution.

47 posted on 07/23/2004 10:38:27 PM PDT by paul51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TalBlack

Yep, it doesn't matter how good you are at the range. No one knows how they will react in that situation unless they've gone through it. I'd say this guy did quite well, and he definitely has a set of brass ones for going after the perp. This guy is no sheep.


48 posted on 07/23/2004 10:39:40 PM PDT by TheDon (The Democratic Party is the party of TREASON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: sourcery

"Beck is partially responsible for Logan's apparent attempt to carjack Denmark's van, because he was forcing Logan to run for his life"


Connor Peterson is partially responsible for Scott Peterson killing his wife, Laci, because he was forcing Scott to deal with his phobia of family. (Note: If Scott
Peterson is innocent, disregard)


Better yet: I as an American am responsible for the human garbage that killed thousands on September 11, because I voted for the president that perpetuated the cruel policy of oppressing terrorists.

Nobody has any personal responsibility anymore. It's so obvious the freaking armed robber should be held criminally and civilly liable for Ms. Denmark's injuries and pain. And if the stupid law books don't say that, they should be re-written by people who haven't spent years immersed in liberal entitlements.


49 posted on 07/23/2004 10:42:00 PM PDT by Flightdeck (Procrastinate later)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Flightdeck

People writing law books are no longer capable of this kind of clear and rationale thinking


50 posted on 07/23/2004 11:26:29 PM PDT by paul51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
He could just as easily have killed her. By shooting her, he put her in at least as much danger as Logan would have--and there is no reason to believe that Logan would have attempted to carjack Denmark's van, but for the actions of Beck.

There is every reason to believe that, had Logan not been forcibly put out of action, he would have continued to rob and shoot people until he was. While is quite likely that had Logan not been pursued, he would not have tried to carjack Ms. Denmark, he almost certainly would have robbed and shot someone else (if not many more people).

If Logan hadn't cold-bloodedly shot Beck, one might judge Beck's actions as excessive. But since Logan demonstrated a willingness to kill without provocation, Beck's shooting clearly (almost certainly) saved innocent lives.

51 posted on 07/23/2004 11:39:31 PM PDT by supercat (Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
If you think you wouldn't be fully liable for chasing a lion into someone else's backyard, and then shooting the homeowner in your attempt to get the lion, think again.

If the lion had clearly demonstrated that it would maul anyone it could, and that such a tendency was not a result of the defendant's actions, then unless there was some reason to believe that the lion would have harmlessly stayed put I see no basis for blaming the defendant for chasing it away. Further, if the lion was clearly in a position to pounce on someone else, I would think shooting at the lion might be justified even if doing so would endanger the person about to be mauled, if the shooter reasonably believed that such action would be less risky than inaction.

52 posted on 07/23/2004 11:52:07 PM PDT by supercat (Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
Self defense is a right, but that does not justify exercising it in such a way so as to violate the rights of others, no matter how great the need.

This logic is brain-dead. By definition, self-defense is the exercise of your right to defend yourself through the use of FORCE to stop another individual from harming you. It necessarily requires you to violate the other party's right. Point in fact, it is possible for a person to FORFEIT his right by course of action. If you violently attack me you FORFEIT your right to live when I exercise my right to self-defense. THIS IS WHY THE LAW PERMITS THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN CASES OF SELF-DEFENSE.

53 posted on 07/24/2004 12:39:19 AM PDT by DeltaZulu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: DeltaZulu; sourcery
Self defense is a right, but that does not justify exercising it in such a way so as to violate the rights of others, no matter how great the need.

This logic is brain-dead. By definition, self-defense is the exercise of your right to defend yourself through the use of FORCE to stop another individual from harming you. It necessarily requires you to violate the other party's right. Point in fact, it is possible for a person to FORFEIT his right by course of action. If you violently attack me you FORFEIT your right to live when I exercise my right to self-defense. THIS IS WHY THE LAW PERMITS THE USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN CASES OF SELF-DEFENSE.

I think you misunderstand; sourcery's point was that self-defense does not imply the right to endanger the lives of innocent people. And to a significant measure he's right. On the other hand, risk is usually a quantitative rather than qualitative phenomenon. Nearly anything one might do in many self-defense situations would pose some non-zero risk if injuring or killing an innocent person. Even if one has a clear shot at an attacking criminal, if there's also an innocent person nearby there's a non-zero chance that one's gun might explode, injuring that person. To be sure, such a risk would probably be very slight, but it would nonetheless be non-zero.

I would suggest that a reasonable guiding principle would probably be to consider whether the risk imposed to innocent parties as a result of one's action was greater than the threat posed to them by inaction. If a wild animal is severely mauling someone, someone might be justified in shooting at the animal even if they had a 20% chance of hitting the person being attacked, since the alternative would probably be a 100% certainty of the person being killed.

54 posted on 07/24/2004 1:06:15 AM PDT by supercat (Why is it that the more "gun safety" laws are passed, the less safe my guns seem?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Mulder

>>I don't believe people should be prosecuted for innocent mistakes made in good faith. Nor should they be prosecuted for defending their lives.<<

I agree. Logan was still armed even though he didn't shoot back at Beck. Denmark would have had an armed robber in her vehicle if Beck hadn't shot him.


55 posted on 07/24/2004 6:47:39 AM PDT by B4Ranch (----http://www.firearmsid.com/----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: TalBlack
I shoot USPSA and one of my favorite gags is to bring along one of my cop friends. Their tactics look good, but their shooting is atrocious. This must be said with the caveat that it was a police officer that got me into competition shooting and with a stock .45, his times rival some of the race gun guys. The cops don't practice nearly enough. Of course that applies to most ccw owners too.
56 posted on 07/24/2004 7:01:56 AM PDT by bad company ((<a href="http://www.michaelmoore.com" target="_blank">Hatriotism))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: tbpiper
How good would your aim be after you'd been shot in the head?

Gun owners have the same responsibility as doctors - "First do no harm."

You don't spray bullets in the general direction of a perp in an urban setting where innocent people could be injured or killed unless you are a member of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms or a member of the FBI's Hostage Rescue Team.

57 posted on 07/24/2004 8:48:26 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Drug prohibition laws help fund terrorism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: sourcery
"Self defense is a right, but that does not justify exercising it in such a way so as to violate the rights of others, no matter how great the need. Such is true of all rights."

Self defense Property ownership is a right, but that does not justify exercising it in such a way so as to violate the rights of others, no matter how great the need. Such is true of all rights.

At issue is a conflict of rights. That Property Rights should always trump has not been justified from what I have seen so far.

58 posted on 07/24/2004 8:59:49 AM PDT by KrisKrinkle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: supercat
Reaction to this is fascinating! For contrast, see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1176811/posts which is a similar scenario played out in San Francisco, California. (In California, there is a statute which states that when the perp has ceased his attack and begins to retreat, the use of deadly force is no longer "self defense".)

What this illustrates to me is the wisdom of the advice I was given in my Nevada CCW class: when the police arrive, say nothing more than "I've done nothing wrong here and fully intend to cooperate with your investigation, but I intend to say nothing about this incident until I have spoken with my attorney. I'm sure you understand".

59 posted on 07/24/2004 9:03:38 AM PDT by sailor4321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: KrisKrinkle
At issue is a conflict of rights. That Property Rights should always trump has not been justified from what I have seen so far.

Do you wish to argue that my right to life justifies my stealing your food?

60 posted on 07/24/2004 9:34:12 AM PDT by sourcery (This is your country. This is your country under socialism. Any questions? Just say no to Socialism!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-119 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson