Gilbert police investigators have recommended no charges be filed against a man accused of fatally shooting another man who allegedly assaulted him and robbed some beer outside a convenience store last week.

Stefen Selvy, 21, was released from a Maricopa County jail, where he was being held on suspicion of second-degree murder in the death of Bobby Baughman, 36. Both men are from Gilbert.

Selvy told police he shot Baughman about 7 p.m. Aug. 26 outside the Circle K at 7260 S. Power Road because the man robbed him of his beer and assaulted him with a wrench, police said.

On Thursday, Gilbert investigators determined Selvy was justified in pulling the trigger.

"After a thorough review of all the evidence regarding the Circle K shooting," Sgt. Bill Balafas states in a release, "the actions of the shooter, Stefen Selvy, appear to be legally justified."

The case must first be reviewed by the County Attorney's Office Homicide Bureau before the decision is final.

Selvy told police he was the store with his brother, when Baughman robbed him of his beer in the parking lot. At some point during the robbery, Baughman struck Selvy in the head with a wrench, police said.

Moments later, Selvy returned to his vehicle, retrieved a pistol and chased Baughman behind the store, police said. Selvy eventually caught up with Baughman, who again hit Selvy with the wrench, White added.

A struggle ensued and Selvy fatally shot Baughman in the chest, White said. There is no indication the men knew each other.


Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/community/gilbert/articles/2010/09/02/20100902gilbert-circle-k-killing-beer-robbery-justified-abrk.html#ixzz0yPTLGToH

What would you have done? Would you have gone back to your car, got the gun and chased the guy down?

Do you think the shooting was justified?

Should he have been charged with a crime since he purposely put himself in a dangerous situation?

I would have bought more beer and written the stolen six back off as a charitable donation. 8)

You're right about him pursuing afterwards I think.
If the danger was gone...
Maybe it's like a snake bite though. You're supposed to find the snake that did it so the doctor can identify it and use the proper treatment for your wound.

From evidence provided in article:
Pull a gun in self defense and shot him during the initial beer robbery. = Justified.
He went to his car as robber fled, followed robber, and re-entered struggle. = Not Justified.

Either way, I'm glad they dropped charges. Robber should have known you don't mess with another man's beer and possible results are a bullet to the chest.

K7VZ wrote:He went to his car as robber fled, followed robber, and re-entered struggle. = Not Justified.

yeah, but gilbert isnt charging him. Im guessing its because the robber hit him again with a wrench. But its not worth killing someone over a pack of beer. Shoulda just called the cops and left it at that

Did anyone find out what happened to the poor abducted beer and if it needs a safe home away from all this hate and violence? Let's not forget about the beer in our fast paced chase to pursue personal rights and the legal issues. Priorities, people. Priorities.

offroadaz wrote:yeah, but gilbert isnt charging him. Im guessing its because the robber hit him again with a wrench. But its not worth killing someone over a pack of beer. Shoulda just called the cops and left it at that

I think that is where it gets tricky. I'm sure we don't have all the details from just that article either. BUT, from what it says, he re-entered the struggle after he had a chance to get away. It doesn't matter if he gets hit with a wrench again, he had an escape route and didn't take it. In my opinion, I wouldn't rule him justified in the second struggle and shooting. Also in my self-defense/right to protect your property opinion, there shouldn't be a statute of limitations on stealing a man's beer. If a guy steals your beer, you should be justified in shooting him in the chest 10 minutes later, 10 days later, or 10 years later.

I agree with Virgil, while I don't think he should have went back to re-engage the idiot I am glad the charges were dropped. If someone came up to me in a parking lot, hit me in the head, stole my beer or my wallet, or my watch, or whatever I may have had on me I would call the cops as I went to get my gun from my truck before chasing him to retrieve my belongings. However, with that being said.. I would have my gun on me in the first place so there would be no chasing involved. (hopefully) I think it's justified.

Should have just gotten a bag of frozen peas and another six pack. While it may have been justified, it is after all only beer. Doing something like that is obviously risking the robber's life, but yours as well. If the situation hadn't gone as it did Mr. Shooter could have spent the rest of his life in prison over a pack of bud.

Should of had to the gun on his person in the first place... Gun in the truck, whats the point of carrying? From what I was taught, yes the threat was gone & he escaped but to go "looking" was a bad move, however this brings up the bond between one & his beer!!
I too am glad to hear it was dropped, hopefully this will be a wake up call to other would be beer thief's "touch my beer & you die!"

Now who wants a cold one?

AZCA jeeper wrote:Should have just gotten a bag of frozen peas and another six pack. While it may have been justified, it is after all only beer. Doing something like that is obviously risking the robber's life, but yours as well. If the situation hadn't gone as it did Mr. Shooter could have spent the rest of his life in prison over a pack of bud.

You're focusing to much on the object at risk and not the principle. What if it was your wallet? what if it was $100? No matter what it was, stealing is stealing.

Ok lets focus on principle then. The idea that stealing someone’s case of beer justifies shooting him? This isn’t Tombstone circa 1860. Personally I wouldn’t shoot for that. You shoot when your life is threatened, and seeing as the man had run off the shooter’s life was no longer in danger. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for exercising your right to concealed carry, but in doing so you also are expected to act responsibly with your weapon. Reentering a hazardous and threatening situation is not responsible. Setting aside the macho-male “you don’t steal a man’s beer” ideology the shooter’s actions, though perfectly legal, were far from idyllic. But what do I know? I’m just a stupid 19 year old teenager who can’t even go out and buy rounds for a pistol, let alone the pistol itself. How should I know when to use one?

lol I get what your saying Caleb, but if all he had done was steal something, sure. But if you read the artical he was hit in the head twice with a wrench. If something is stolen from me and no harm is done to me physically, then no I would never shoot for that! no worldly possesion is worth a mans life. If you hit me in the head with a wrench during that process? then yeah I"ll probably shoot you.

AZCA jeeper wrote:Ok lets focus on principle then. The idea that stealing someone’s case of beer justifies shooting him? This isn’t Tombstone circa 1860. Personally I wouldn’t shoot for that. You shoot when your life is threatened, and seeing as the man had run off the shooter’s life was no longer in danger. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for exercising your right to concealed carry, but in doing so you also are expected to act responsibly with your weapon. Reentering a hazardous and threatening situation is not responsible. Setting aside the macho-male “you don’t steal a man’s beer” ideology the shooter’s actions, though perfectly legal, were far from idyllic. But what do I know? I’m just a stupid 19 year old teenager who can’t even go out and buy rounds for a pistol, let alone the pistol itself. How should I know when to use one?

I'm going to have to go with Caleb on this one. I'm all for protecting yourself, but going back into the fight with a weapon, your intent is to use it. Stealing is wrong. Whacking someone in the head after stealing their beer is wrong. There is nothing the bad guy did that was good or right, but once your life is out of danger and you reload to enter the fray again, it's a different story. Wrench guy didnt' follow him back to the truck and continue pounding him, etc... Now, again, all that being said, with adrenaline flowing, I would probably go after the guy too, but re-entering the fray looking for a fight with a gun escalates it to a whole different level... and Caleb, drop the stupid 19 year old bit. It doesn't fit and looks funny when you put it on. : ) (although being 19 might account for your not fully understanding why the beer part is so important to the story. LOL)

In AZ, you have the right to shoot to protect your property. Again, the problem with this case as presented is the guy was out of the struggle and re-entered. Once he did that, it muddies the waters for a self-defense case.

Would a police officer be justified in this shooting?

I would say more so since he is allowed to "chase" after suspects.

Allowed? What makes a cop more allowed then myself to chase after my property? All I"m saying, is if someone stole my wallet/beer/whatever, hit me in the head and ran, I would go after him. Hands down. And if I had the option of taking a gun while chasing him, sure I definitely would. I wouldn't have any intentions of shooting the guy UNLESS he hit me AGAIN. At which point, it's still self defense, right?

Police officers can shoot anything, anywhere, any time they want. No justification needed. Allowed as in it's their job. Original Circle K guy still should have not re-entered the confrontation.

alanzona wrote:... and Caleb, drop the stupid 19 year old bit. It doesn't fit and looks funny when you put it on. : ) (although being 19 might account for your not fully understanding why the beer part is so important to the story. LOL)

Damn! And here I sat thinking I had some good material! lol