In one of my recent columns, I reported on an incident which originally seemed like a case of legitimate self-defense, at least according to the officers who first came on the scene.
This was the Florida incident revolving around four young males who had allegedly stolen multiple boxes of disposable diapers and then got into an argument with a Walmart employee who had followed them out of the store. From my original article:
According to deputies, it was then that a legally armed shopper showed up and attempted to assist the store employee. At some point during the confrontation, the “Good Samaritan” shot one of the robbers, claiming that the young man “looked like he was reaching for a gun.”
“What we have at this point is that the individual felt threatened — one of the suspects reached for something [and he] thought that it was a weapon or firearm,” Orange County Sheriff’s Office spokesman Angelo Nieves said…
But I also warned that while initial reports may sound favorable for someone who uses deadly force, things can change once the investigation is completed and prosecutors look at the complete report. This is especially true when, as in this case, there is a fatal outcome; one of the robbers, 19-year-old Arthur Adams, died shortly after the event.
First of all, none of the robbers were armed, which, while not a requirement for using deadly force, can be problematic — juries tend to be skeptical when they hear that an alleged attacker was “unarmed.” More damaging to a self-defense claim was that the forensic investigation, as well as interviews with witnesses, clearly indicated that Adams was shot as he was attempting to flee the scene.
As a result, I was not particularly surprised when just last week, prosecutors decided to file charges against 51-year-old Lonnie Leonard, the “Good Samaritan” in the case. The local FOX news headline said it all:
“Florida Walmart Shopper who Killed Diaper Thief Faces Manslaughter Charge”
Pretty neutral reporting of the facts, right? But note the focus of the Orlando Sentinel headline:
“Man Charged with Killing Diaper Thief Fired Gun Nine Times, Affidavit Says”
The wording (intentionally?) implies that Leonard may have used “excessive” force. Not that any of us experienced with anti-gun media bias are shocked.
The investigation also produced some rather interesting facts about the thieves. Not only had the vehicle used in the robbery been carjacked in January, but the deceased individual was a gang member who was already a fugitive on felony probation.
As most of you know, none of the evidence indicating past criminal activity of the four thieves would have any bearing on the case, because it was unknown to Mr. Leonard at the time. In fact, it would likely be inadmissible in court.
But this case does prove the point I made when I first reported on it: No matter how good any case looks, even to arriving police, “an overly zealous prosecutor who thinks the law has been violated in some way could easily decide to move forward with a prosecution. This can sometimes occur weeks, even months, after the initial investigation.” Which is exactly what happened here.
The outcome of the upcoming trial remains to be seen. But in the meantime, Mr. Leonard’s situation should serve as a cautionary tale; being a “Good Samaritan” can be a courageous, perhaps even noble, act. But it can also be extremely risky.
