SUFFOLK
A store owner who shot a burglar four times last month will not face criminal charges because he believed his life was in danger, the commonwealth’s attorney has decided.
The burglar, Ernest Roop, 38, created “a very dangerous situation” when he broke into the J&L Food Mart in Whaleyville dressed in camouflage and carrying a crowbar and a hunting knife, prosecutor Phil Ferguson wrote in a statement released Thursday.
Roop did not have a gun and did not appear to be holding the knife or the crowbar when he was shot, he said.
The store owner, James H. Durden Jr., had a blood alcohol concentration of about 0.10 when police arrived – high enough to be charged with driving under the influence had he been operating a vehicle. Ferguson called that issue “irrelevant to this case.”
Durden was responding to an emergency situation, the prosecutor said, and “one could not argue he was at fault.”
According to the account in Ferguson’s letter:
An alarm alerted Durden and his wife at their home less than 100 yards from the store about 4 a.m. June 21. Durden’s wife said she was going to investigate, and Durden decided to go with her, first retrieving his .45-caliber handgun. On the way out, he told his daughter to call the police.
The couple saw a broken window at the east side of the store. Through a south window, Durden spotted Roop at the cash register.
The burglar turned toward Durden with what the store owner thought was a gun. Durden fired three times toward Roop, ducked down, looked up and was “face to face with Roop at the Southside window as Roop had run around the counter and toward the glass” where Durden stood.
Durden fired one more shot.
Police found Roop on the floor under that window.
Ferguson wrote that Durden cooperated with police and the commonwealth’s attorney’s office and that evidence supported his story.
“Under Virginia law, a person may use deadly force when he reasonably fears under the circumstances as they appear to him that he is in danger of being killed or that he is in danger of great bodily harm.”
A Suffolk jury, Ferguson concluded, would not convict Durden.
Durden may have mistaken Roop’s heavy, gray gloves for a gun, he said, although it is impossible to know. Video surveillance at the store recorded only part of the incident and was poor. Of approximately three cameras in the store, only one was working, the prosecutor said.
“It would almost tell you nothing. … You could see the person was deceased, you could see him reaching into the cash register,” but that was only in one far corner, he said.
Durden did not return a telephone message Thursday.
Roop had a criminal record, including a felony burglary conviction in 2003 that earned him jail time and was revoked twice, according to online court records. His family said he had struggled with drug addiction for years but was never violent.
Roop’s father, Scott Roop, learned of the decision when a reporter contacted him Thursday afternoon.
He said he understands the right to defend oneself and one’s property.
“But I don’t know that property is worth deadly force.
“Someone was apparently intoxicated, he was handling a firearm. To me he used very excessive force.”
Anne Coughlin, a law professor at the University of Virginia, said the fact that Durden had been drinking “would raise some additional alarms. You would worry that perhaps the store owner wasn’t thinking clearly, wasn’t able to evaluate the situation in a reasonable manner.”
Still, she said, “you wouldn’t want to deny him the right to defend himself. “He wasn’t out drinking looking for trouble. He was behaving in a perfectly law-abiding way and this emergency arose and it was necessary for him to respond to it.”
Scott Roop said he wishes a jury or a judge could have made that call.
“I guess I’m just a little disappointed in our city. They chose to feel it wasn’t worthy of investigating further.”
Kristin Davis, (757) 222-5555, kristin.davis@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Death of Mr Roop
The local community should back a "Good Citizen Award" for Mr Durden.
Put this in perspective.
Too many of you are off the mark on this case, simply because you think that this won’t or can’t happen to you. To be truly fair in your opinion, you only have to put yourself in the position of Mr. Durden or that of Mr. Roop and his family. Can you honestly feel good about killing a man for destroying a small piece of your property and possibly taking a few dollars or food items? Does having a drug addiction and a criminal record make one unworthy of being alive or reduce the value of his/her life to that of a rabid dog or a pesky insect? And what if this was one of YOUR loved ones that was perpetrating the act (break-in), would it be okay for the property owner to take justice in his own hands and administer vigilante justice without exercising the due process of the law and legal system that has been established to protect all of us? If the answer to any of these questions is “yes”, then surely that system has failed us and will continue to do so unless we take into consideration the consequences of living in a lawless society.
With all due respect...
how can anyone realistically know the circumstances that you describe? Confronting anyone with a drug addiction, if you know they have one, can be a quite dangerous undertaking in itself. Is a person supposed to engage such an individual in conversation to determine WHY they are robbing his business, or just let them have their way? Think there may be a deterrent value in a situation like this, where others so inclined to burglarize someone's property may think twice? Given how this man has been burglarized muliple times, I think that may be a real possibility. And if he'll do this for his business, God help someone if they mess with his home or loved ones! I personally think those are good lessons to heed.
If it were one of MY loved ones who ended up dead becaue of a circumstance like this, MY first question would be: what was he/she doing there in the first place? You imply that this perp was harmless. No one can know or assume that. The efforts to villainize this man who did what most others would do in similar circumstancs are getting to be beyond the pale!
The system fails us most of
The system fails us most of the time. This is one of those times that it didn't.
Your Choice
Do not break into my place and all is good. Break in and you may have lead poison when you leave. Remember the choice is yours. Zero , Period The End
JWB
Your "slippery slope" to a kid with a candy bar being shot misses the logic check.
The CA herself said that the big difference was this man was drinking (about four beers) in the privacy of his own home, preparing to go to bed, not thinking that he would be awakened by a burglar alarm. He was *not* planning to be outside after having a few drinks--the thief forced that situation.
Otherwise, people leaving Waterside and peacefully walking to their nearby homes after a few drinks would have no right to protect themselves against attackers because *they had been drinking before the attack occurred.*
Unfortunate but the responsibility rest with the thief
I think that this death was unfortunate. However, if the burgular had never broken into the store in the first place then he would be alive today. I am not condoning going back to the wild west but a man has a right to protect his family and property.
Why Not?
With the revolving door legal system we have, I think it is about time the restrictions be lifted on someone defending themselves and their property. When a bunch of burglars and thugs start ending up DEAD, you will start to see a very quick drop in crime. Bet on it. Virginia needs to pass the Castle Doctrine now.
Knives are lethal weapons . . .
Just ask the Chesapeake authorities who just decided a policeman was justified in shooting a woman charging him with a knife on Battlefield Blvd earlier this year.
The thing is, the perp in the Suffolk case made it over to the window, right next to the store owner, before he was lethally shot. Sounds like he was charging the store owner, eh?
Who will be shot next?
A kid shopping lifting a candy bar? And the total excuse will be that the intoxicated owner of the store was defending his property? What a joke!How many of you will get on the band wagon that no judge or jury is needed. Kill the kid and ask questions later. Insanity!
Insane
You created a wholly unrelated scenario to sell your hatred of self-defense. A kid stealing a candy bar is just a bit different from a grown man who has broken into a store at night. Your delusional tirade only draws attention to the fact that you have no real argument here aside from your anger that a man defended his property! Get a life!
Wrong!
First of all...this was no "kid shoplifting a candy bar". He was a grown adult, a convicted felon whose probation had been revoked more than once, and he was a habitual drug user. A real choir boy this one. He wasn't shoplifting in the middle of the day. He broke into private property in the middle of the night to rob the place of what ever he could find of value. The owner responded to an alarm ON HIS PROPERTY, which is his right to do. Said "shoplifter" put the owner in a position where he felt his life and the life of his wife was in danger, and the owner ended that threat. Period. If this P.O.S. hadn't gone to this man's business to commit this crime, we wouldn't be discussing this right now would we. Put the blame where it belongs...ON THE CRIMINAL THAT BROKE IN!
MR. ROOP A VICTIM OF HIS OWN CHOOSING
Look at the bright side, the store owners actions saved the tax payers a lot of money and another habitual criminal is off the streets. No trial and lengthy appeals saved on court costs and court appointed attorney fees, plus there will be no housing, feeding and providing free medical care for a prisoner. The laws today protect the criminals not the victims, he probably would have been set free beacuse of some legal loophole, or the arresting officers did somthing wrong or he was denied proper counsel. To Mr Scott Roop on your "wishes to have a jury or a judge make the call on excessive force", your son a convicted felon and user of drugs, made a bad decision by robbing again and putting the store owner and his wife in a situation that neither wanted to be in. Unfortunately he met a law-abiding citizen who has every right to protect his life and his wifes life, including their property they rightfully worked for and earned. Sorry for your loss. Thanks to the commonwealth attorney who made the right decision on not filing criminal charges against the store owner. If the family sues in a civil court the verdict will be not guilty because the true victim in this case also has rights.
MR. ROOP A VICTIM OF HIS OWN CHOOSING
Look at the bright side, the store owners actions saved the tax payers a lot of money and another habitual criminal is off the streets...., No trial and lengthy appeals saved on court costs and court appointed attorney fees, plus there will be no housing, feeding and providing free medical care for a prisoner. The laws today protect the criminals not the victims, he probably would have been set free beacuse of some legal loophole, or the arresting officers did somthing wrong or he was denied proper counsel. To Mr Scott Roop on your "wishes to have a jury or a judge make the call on excessive force", your son a convicted felon and user of drugs, made a bad decision by robbing again and putting the store owner and his wife in a situation that neither wanted to be in. Unfortunately he met a law-abiding citizen who has every right to protect his life and his wifes life, including their property they rightfully worked for and earned. Sorry for your loss. Thanks to the commonwealth attorney who made the right decision on not filing criminal charges against the store owner. If the family sues in a civil court the verdict will be not guilty because the true victim in this case also has rig
Police are not your personal body guards
I don't think many here really know what the job of the police really is. It is not to be anyone's personal bodyguard. A person has to be responsible for their own self-defense in an immediate life or death situation or they will end up the one inside the chalk outline. A person is also primarily responsible for protection of their personal property, not the police.
And by some of the 'logic' here, anyone who has had anything to drink becomes an automatic clay pigeon for any type of assault and should not try to defend themselves? Terrific.
The CA was absolutely right. A person broke into a store. The owner responded to an alarm to check on his store and protect his property from theft, AS IS HIS RIGHT. The owner had already alerted police. At the store the owner met a perceived threat to his life with self-defense. In a sane society, that should be ‘end of story’.
Next time , maybe a sign on his storefront:
To all burglars-please submit burglary schedule to management in advance so as to ensure no alcohol consumption by management prior to burglary and the alerting of the police well in advance- Thanks .
One would think.....
That it was the victim at fault. It is not. The perp decided to break in. The perp decided to rob the mini-mart. I do not feel the least bit sorry for him. Rook knew what he was doing was wrong. He obviosly knew right from wrong. But he still chose. I'm kinda disappointed in his father. He places blame on the city and on the owners, but places no blame on his son. His could have chosen to not take drugs. His son could have chosen not to rob people. I say Durden had every right to defend what was his.
Suffolk shop owner won't face charges for killing burglar
I do feel that one has the right to protect themselves against someone trying to harm them physically, but is shooting to protect your property fall under the same guidelines. Property can be replaced. Is shooting a thief now acceptable in today's society as punishment for that crime?
What about other crimes? Why call the police if we are going to leave a perfectly safe environment, go to an environment where he really didn't know if there was more than one person breaking in. He put his own life in harm's way. I do feel if he hadn't been intoxicated, he then would've probably made a better decision.
right to protect life & property
The store owner had every right to drink in his own home and since when is that a crime? How was he to know a burglar would enter his property at night with a crowbar and a knife? You don't know how you would react in this situation until faced with it. For once I am glad to see that the real victim (store owner) survived and the perpetrator is now off our streets for good. He would have been right back out on streets again committing more and worse crimes. Good riddance
It is over now.
All of you roadside lawyers that think the store owner was not justified might as well get over it. The chief law enforcement official (Suffolk's Commonwealths Attorney)has decided that he was justified- end of story.
As for your notion of a civil suit, if a criminal jury probably wouldn't convict, a civil jury would be just as likely to to decide in the store owners favor. The owner was protecting his property and the law doesn't mandate that you retreat from someone while he is committing a crime against you or your property. It also does not mandate that you wait for the police. If he threatens your life or safety with an overt act while you attempt to protect yourself or your property then the deadly force becomes justified.
The store owner should sue
The store owner should sue the burglar's family for the cost to repair his store and for the clean up.