Abstract

This paper addresses an incident that occurred at a convenient store. It includes the chronological order of events, suspect descriptions and actions, employee actions, forensics or lack thereof, the prosecutor and defense attorney view, and the charges/sentencing of the crime. A reference page will be provided as applicable. Chronology:
Around closing time, two black males—one tall, one short—entered the store in a rush. I will refer to them as Suspect 1 (short), and Suspect 2 (tall). Suspect 1 began shouting about the money in the drawer, while Suspect 2 was physically removing the cash. Then Suspect 1 started to demand the safe to be opened. Then he [Suspect 1] began to get aggressive with the store clerk. He fired one shot into the air and light bulb blows. Suspect 2 says something that sounded like “it’s enough, let’s go!” The two suspects leave calmly.
Suspect Descriptions:
Suspect 1: Black male, baggy jeans, white or light color T-Shirt, dark bandana, toboggan, around 5’2’’ (short), maybe 190 lbs. aggressive, armed, and ungloved.
Suspect 2: Black male, baggy jeans, dark color T-shirt, dark bandana, toboggan, around 5’9’’ (tall), maybe 180lbs. more passive than aggressive verbally, ungloved.

Actions [Suspects and Employees]:
The store clerk is mopping the floor. The cash drawer is semi-cracked, which is unusual even at closing—why, because the door of the store was still unlocked, normal procedures is to count drawer down after closing/locking the door. Two black men enter the store, immediately demanding cash. One is armed and aggressively demanding the money, the other says nothing but goes straight for the register. Suspect 1 says, “Get the f**k on the ground!”, “No? Yes, yes, yes, lie to me again!” to the clerk behind the counter while Suspect 2 is taking the money. Suspect 1 then starts grabbing money. He [suspect1] then says, “Where the f**k is the safe?” Suspect 1 then gets aggressive with the store clerk that was mopping. He hit the clerk once. He fired a shot to the ceiling, shooting out a light bulb. Suspect 2 said something that sounded like, “it’s enough, let’s go.” During all the commotion until he was hit, the store clerk that was mopping never stopped. He saw them come in the store, suspect 1 walked past him to go behind the counter, he never stopped mopping. He didn’t even seem fazed by the two suspects.
Forensics:
Because the two suspects were both ungloved, fingerprints from the cash drawer and possibly the door of the store could be helpful. Assuming the gun was real, there should be a shell casing. Even if it was a pellet gun, some evidence should be around to be collected and examined. The counter could also be dusted for prints. Since the clerk was mopping the floor, shoe prints may also be available; when a floor is wet dirt from shoes “track” the floor, once it dries it becomes more visible. Prosecution:
If I were a prosecutor for this case, I would want to know all I could about the suspects to build a more solid case. The video was accurate but does not show enough of what happened behind the counter. Suspect one I feel I would be harsher on because, 1 he was armed and aggressive, 2 he fired the gun within the city. An innocent person could have died. Suspect two was not armed but could be believed armed by the right jury. I would press for the max for both to deter further crimes, because I think they could be a part of a gang. Even in the event of robbery most do not wear bandanas. It’s seen but I would go for the gang involvement to help clean the streets. I believe most jurors would eat this up with a spoon.
Defense Attorney:
On the other hand, if I were the defense attorney, I would go for troubled youth. I would play on the pity of the court. I would put in the mind of the court that the suspects did not lock up the store clerks they only took the money. I would convince the court that the store clerk was asking for trouble by having the drawer open