Quote:Quote:
My father, who has been a defense attorney for 20+ years, made quick rebuttals to my initial assertions about the man. His rebuttals included:
(1) The black man did not know if the the white guy was armed or not.
(2) He showed no intent to kill the man. This was proven by the fact that he did NOT run away, but instead walked straight into the police station and allowed the officers to arrest him without resisting.
(3) He made a CLEAR attempt to runaway for his safety.
I respect your Dad's rebuttals, but those are the rebuttals of a defense attorney. Defense attorneys are in the habit of finding words to defend anything. I went ahead and numbered his rebuttals in your reply. In order:
1. Absolutely meaningless. No-one knows if anyone is armed or not, walking down the street or in a fight. You can't shoot until you KNOW. That's the point. "Knot knowing" is a precise argument for not shooting, and being guilty for shooting. If you shoot when you "don't know", legally speaking, you get lucky if he is armed. If he's not, you pay the price for being wrong and taking a life under a hasty, ill informed decision which was wrong. Every armed man, who is the least bit knowledgable, knows that there is a lawyer attached to every bullet fired. You can't "be wrong" when you choose to fire, and in this society, we are held accountable for the liability and injury that comes from our actions, even if they were an accident or made sense at the time to the shooter. After all, no wants to be chased and confronted. However, that act still doesn't prove lethal intent. You have to prove lethal intent. After the fact, in this case, that has yet to be proven. After all, the guy wasn't armed.
2. Umm...so the killing was an accident? No. He pulled a gun, aimed, fired, and killed the man. That was absolutely his intent. That has never been in dispute, nor could it be. I think you are saying that "he tried to avoid" killing the man, before he intentionally killed him, by going to the police station. Well, that's irrelevant once he kills the man. The only way that you can state, with impunity, that he had no other choice is if you can prove lethal intent. In this case, it cannot be proven.
3. This is the only argument that could possibly give the guy a little bit of credibility, but to me its not enough. To the jury, it was, and that's all that matters; however unfortunate for the dead man. Saying that running away is enough to warrant murder, if pursued, means that it can be applied in all circumstances. In a bar fight, in a domestic dispute, in a road rage incident, in a softball game brawl. In those isntances, I bet you even pictured a fight before the guy is pursued and shot? Well, in this circumstance the guy wasn't even punched, in fornt of the police station, before he killed the guy. there was no gun in the mans hand. No knife. No baseball bat. Nothing to indicate lethal intent. He just fired on the guy, quickly, as he was charged.
Quote:Quote:
Something which has been discussed here multiple times as something men have frequently KILLED each other over.
What men "have done" is legally irrelevant in a shooting decision.
Quote:Quote:
What was the black man left to do?
Run into the cop station. Wait for the police to come out and break it up. How about those options?
How about throwing a punch?
Quote:Quote:
He made a clear attempt to escape.
Addressed before. As a matter of a "legal shooting" policy, in my mind you need more, like proof of lethal intent, lest it become too widely applied to all unarmed men in pursuit.
Quote:Quote:
Was he supposed to simply let the boyfriend walk up to him and hit him/shoot him/slit his throat?
Oh, was there a knife or a gun? If there was, then I stand corrected and concede. If there wasn't, then yes, you either get hit or put up your fists. As I said before, the "not knowing" argument is invalid and should legally work against anyone in a shooting situation.
Quote:Quote:
This was definitely a kill or be killed situation.
How was it definitely a kill or be killed situation? Show me the clear evidence? You cannot because there is none. You need concrete proof to justify a shooting. No substitutes, no personal opinions.
Quote:Quote:
Who would chase someone halfway across town to attack them, if they didn't have the intent to kill?
Maybe lots of people. And what is "halfway across town"? What was the exact distance? That statement is hyperbole. What's the precise distance that a pursuit needs to cover before deadly intent is established? The opinion about "intent to kill" isn't based on anything concrete. It's irrational. Do you have stats on civilians chasing and killing each other, versus non-lethal outcomes? What statistics do you base this conclusive opinion on? I would surmise that there are LOTS of civilian disputes, that are chases, that end non-lethally. In fact, I would guess that most end non-lethally. To use that argument, you would have to prove that most chases end lethally, therefore justifying the shoot.
The fact is, there is no rational reason to believe that the white guy had lethal intent. There is only guessing and opinion. Not enough to justify a shoot or the guys exoneration.
I forgot about any possible racial issue many posts ago. Race isn't what this is about.
Whatever anyone's opinion, he got off. That's that.
The only real point left to make is for anyone that would consider shooting in the same situation. My opinion, as well as that of a couple of other guys, is that it's ill advised. If you find yourself in that situation and you do shoot, then you take your chances with the law and a jury. My point is that its better to have the proof (knife, gun, etc) of lethal intent before you gamble your freedom away. I would have taken that punch. I think the guy is a pussy for shooting given the displayed threat level. If you really think you are going to die at the hands of an unarmed man, then go ahead and shoot. But the price you pay for your life, in that instance, might be to spend the rest of it in jail. In that case, its a trade-off. An unfortunate one, but at least you will be alive and know that you made the "right" decision (if you think that jail is better than death) and will be content that you had no other choice, no matter what anyone else thinks. However, I cant think of a circumstance where an unarmed man poses a legitimate deadly threat to me - at least until he flashes that weapon. There is no rule against drawing your pistol - you just can't fire until you see the weapon. If he is armed, you will have the drop on it when he shows it. This is another piece of logic that goes against this guys decision. He already had the gun pulled, and therefore no weapon the white guy pulled would have been fast enough. The truth is, he just didn't want to take a beat down. He's a pussy and a criminal for killing, if that's the case. Which it looks like it is.
Defense attorneys, like your father, often need to convince juries, which in turn are swayed by illogical jumps and emotional opinion. The prosecution is an entirely different animal from a jury. The moral and legal logic of an act should be gauged according to the prosecutions interpretation of the law, at least if you are trying to keep yourself out of jail. Not whether or not a jury can be fooled by logic that falls short of concrete legitimacy. That's just my opinion. This is absolutely no disrespect to your father, as it sounds like he's good at finding possible arguments with which to defend his clients. That's his job, but like I said, I would look at this from the perspective of the office of the prosecutor to give yourself the best chance of staying out of jail.