[All or Nothing]

(11-29-2011 07:09 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

You have at least three people telling you that you are misapplying the spirit of the law, two of them who are professionals.

By your logic, anyone involved in a fist-fight can justify a shooting based on a claimed fear of death. I will tell you that there isn't a single state in the union with laws that were designed to support that circumstance.

I discussed this video with my dad in the car ride home from college for Thanksgiving break. Initially I was on your side hydrogonian, but after discussing it with my father (who has not seen the video, but given a variety of facts regarding the video), I am mixed on this. My father, who has been a defense attorney for 20+ years, made quick rebuttals to my initial assertions about the man. His rebuttals included:
-The black man did not know if the the white guy was armed or not.
-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.
-He made a CLEAR attempt to runaway for his safety.

Thinking about it more myself, I do find the shooting justified. Being white, I'll be honest, my gut reaction was to defend the white guy. Looking at the situation more objectively than I did initially, the black man was defending himself against a crazed boyfriend. One who may or may not have been armed and one who had been the victim of cheating. Something which has been discussed here multiple times as something men have frequently KILLED each other over. What was the black man left to do? He made a clear attempt to escape. Was he supposed to simply let the boyfriend walk up to him and hit him/shoot him/slit his throat?

My dad said this case sounded extremely interesting to him. It does contain many variables to it, like both the men are fairly equal in size. It does involve black on white violence, which usually leads to conviction in courts.

Either way, I have come around to see his actions as justified. This was definitely a kill or be killed situation. Simply because of this basic question that comes to mind. Who would chase someone halfway across town to attack them, if they didn't have the intent to kill?

Quote:

The case of Harold Fish is different because the dead man had a record of being crazy. That is Harold's only saving grace. Without that, he should sit in jail. He, also, shot an um-armed man. He didn't use the correct tool for the job. Are there cases where shooting an unarmed man is justifiable? Yes. But usually there are vast size differences between the assailed and the assailant (such as a 6'4" man and a 5'0" woman), and the jury uses such a difference to justify the shooting. Also, you better be able to prove deadly intent beyond the shadow of a doubt (you are beaten up or injured). Fish got off easy, as well.

How would he have known he was crazy? Before the court case, he was just some random black guy to the cops.

[hydrogonian]

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

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.

[All or Nothing]

(11-29-2011 11:59 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

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.

Good job at undermining my dad's opinion on the matter. Being a lawyer for 20+ years means a lot less if he works on the defense side of the law. Unlike the prosecutors, who are almost angelic by comparison. Even though my dad made his points in a quick retort during a conversation, I'm 100% certain they hold more weight than your words from 20+ years of experience with law.

Actually, I'm pretty certain my dad's words hold more weight than anyone else in this thread. He has 1000's of hours of experience deliberating law inside of courts and 1000's more more studying law. How many have you compiled?

I'll only admit to this, when typing up what he said, the faultiness of memory retention only allows me to write a crude interpretation of what my father said.

Here's my rebuttal to your point. Should he have simply let the aggressor attack him, grab him, and possibly pull out a concealed weapon and kill him? The man who was running away did not know if the enraged boyfriend had a weapon or not. All he knew was that he was following him across town in an attempt to attack. Again, if someone is going to take the time to tail someone for a length of time by car, the attack will have a high probability of being highly violent and may include deadly weapons.

What you keep insisting on is that the black man, simply guess that the man who pursued him by car did not have a weapon. Would you gamble if your life was on the line?

Also, you seem to ignore the fact that there was a level of tension that built up. You keep talking about this like it happened in an instant. It did not. It was a prolonged attack. This wasn't a simple case of a man walking up to another man to start a fight and then being viciously murdered in an overreaction. This was a case where the pursued was being tailed by car by the pursuer over a length of time and then aggressively cut off after he parked.

Quote:

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.

He had no intent to kill, means that he did not want to kill the aggressor. If had ran from the scene of the crime, it would be assumed that he had murdered his attacker purposely and in fear of being caught is running from the law. Instead, he walks directly over to the police station and waits for the police officers to arrest him. This shows that he was not out to murder someone, but instead was defending himself and in this case of defense, it lead to the death of his aggressor.

[hydrogonian]

(11-29-2011 03:22 AM)afronoob Wrote:  

What exactly do you disbelieve?

I see, now, how you interpreted my message. No, I was referring to my statement, "9mm FMJ 115gr is shitty ammunition," as not being exactly true. My syntax wasn't the best.

[hydrogonian]

Quote:

Good job at undermining my dad's opinion on the matter.

I went out of my way to say that I respect your fathers argument, both at the beginning and the end of my post.

Quote:

Being a lawyer for 20+ years means a lot less if he works on the defense side of the law. Unlike the prosecutors, who are almost angelic by comparison.

What?

I have no idea what your talking about. I think that you are making some irrational jumps, here, because you are trying to defend your father. What you aren't realizing is that your father is not, nor was he under attack nor scrutiny.

One big difference between your father and prosecutors, though, is that prosecutors are the ones who file charges. Your father's job is to defend ANYONE that hires him. What that means is that he can make arguments that are designed to sway juries, but aren't necessarily unimpeachable. These aren't digs against your father, just descriptions of his job. Its a fine job. But he's not the one who decides who is charged with murder and who is not. THAT'S who shooters need to worry about. THAT'S why the prosecutions opinion should matter more to shooters. Because if they think that you are a murderer, then all of a sudden your ass is on the line, and, really, it can go either way, always. That's why I'm not interested in impeachable arguments in this discussion, and why you shouldn't be either. We are trying to get to the root of the logic and morality that shapes the law, to avoid being brought up on charges and going to jail. Also, in an effort to act to the highest degree of personal morality for the good of society, justice, and the safety of your community.

Quote:

Even though my dad made his points in a quick retort during a conversation, I'm 100% certain they hold more weight than your words from 20+ years of experience with law.

Actually, I'm pretty certain my dad's words hold more weight than anyone else in this thread. He has 1000's of hours of experience deliberating law inside of courts and 1000's more more studying law. How many have you compiled?

More weight. Where do they hold more weight? On this forum? In Florida? Where? Do they hold more "weight" than CLR's words, who is a former LEO turned Federal Agent, or Jim Kirk, who is also an attorney? They also share my opinion. Your getting irrationally defensive about your father, even after I went out of my way to give him all due respect. That's annoying to me, because I didn't have to say anything laudatory about your father.

Also, your father wouldn't appreciate the fact that you are now making what is called an Appeal to Authority, which is a "logical fallacy" and it's what trial attorneys are taught to avoid and argue against. Look it up. The argument that your father is an attorney with 20+ years experience, and therefore his words hold more weight, is an invalid appeal to authority and therefore an invalid argument. All arguments need to withstand scrutiny on their own merit.

Quote:

Here's my rebuttal to your point. Should he have simply let the aggressor attack him, grab him, and possibly pull out a concealed weapon and kill him? The man who was running away did not know if the enraged boyfriend had a weapon or not. All he knew was that he was following him across town in an attempt to attack. Again, if someone is going to take the time to tail someone for a length of time by car, the attack will have a high probability of being highly violent and may include deadly weapons.

What you keep insisting on is that the black man, simply guess that the man who pursued him by car did not have a weapon. Would you gamble if your life was on the line?

My rebuttals to this are in the prior post.

Quote:

Also, you seem to ignore the fact that there was a level of tension that built up

.

Not ignoring. It's irrelevant.

Quote:

You keep talking about this like it happened in an instant. It did not. It was a prolonged attack. This wasn't a simple case of a man walking up to another man to start a fight and then being viciously murdered in an overreaction. This was a case where the pursued was being tailed by car by the pursuer over a length of time and then aggressively cut off after he parked.

Again, its irrelevant.

BUT, I'll offer you this. If this ever happens to you, go ahead and shoot.

Test your theory.

I wouldn't.
But no one is stopping you.

Quote:

He had no intent to kill, means that he did not want to kill the aggressor.

No, he DID want to kill the aggressor. In legal terms, "not wanting to kill" means that it was an accident. This wasn't an accident. He raised the gun, pointed and shot. You didn't read my prior post well enough. Revisit it, where I say that what you meant to say that was he "tried to avoid being put into a position" where he had to kill the aggressor. Once he kills, its irrelevant what he supposedly tried to avoid and didn't try to avoid. All that matters is the provable lethal intent of the dead person. If I get an unarmed guy to chase me around a track for a mile, after I finally turn and shoot him dead, it doesn't matter - versus shooting an unarmed man without running. Either way, lethal intent is what matters. "Chasing" doesn't prove lethal intent. How does a court know that I didn't get him to chase me just for show, because when I finally murder him I know that the "chase" will make me look innocent? That's why "lethal intent" is the most important, and really the only important, factor - at least from a morally ideal perspective - if not a legal perspective in many/most jurisdictions.

His opinion was that he had to do what he did. His opinion is not all that matters. As a matter of fact, it matters the least. The prosecutors and the juries opinion is what matters. What I'm saying, and what others are saying, is that its improbable that a jury would share the opinion that that specific shoot was justified, most of the time. CLR and Kim Kirk agree.

That's all. No need to get pissed about it. As I said before, all that matters now is the lessons you take from this and how each individual might handle the same situation in the future. This case is done with.

Quote:

If had ran from the scene of the crime, it would be assumed that he had murdered his attacker purposely and in fear of being caught is running from the law. Instead, he walks directly over to the police station and waits for the police officers to arrest him.

So what? Lots of guilty murderers turn themselves in. It doesn't mean much.

Quote:

This shows that he was not out to murder someone, but instead was defending himself and in this case of defense, it lead to the death of his aggressor.

It shows nothing of the sort. These are all "leaps of logic" that are unsupported by evidence. Can and did it sway a jury? Yup. It doesn't mean that the guy acted in the spirit of the law. It just means that a jury was able to be convinced. As I said before, that's what matters. As I said before, the point is the lesson to take away. Don't take the wrong one. If this video is held up as an example to show guys here what a "good shoot" is, then that's incredibly misguided. But I've made my points. Do what you will.

This is getting repetitive. All my opinions can be found in this post and my previous posts. Revisit them for clarity, as that's about all I have to say on the matter.

[All or Nothing]

(11-30-2011 01:32 AM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

No, he DID want to kill the aggressor.

In the moment that the man was lunging at him, he intended to shoot him in defense. Prior to that he showed zero intent of killing the man. He showed the opposite by running away to a police station, albeit unsuccessfully.

Quote:

In legal terms, "not wanting to kill" means that it was an accident. This wasn't an accident. He raised the gun, pointed and shot. You didn't read my prior post well enough. Revisit it, where I say that what you meant to say that was he "tried to avoid being put into a position" where he had to kill the aggressor. Once he kills, its irrelevant what he supposedly tried to avoid and didn't try to avoid. All that matters is the provable lethal intent of the dead person. If I get an unarmed guy to chase me around a track for a mile, after I finally turn and shoot him dead, it doesn't matter - versus shooting an unarmed man without running. Either way, lethal intent is what matters. "Chasing" doesn't prove lethal intent. How does a court know that I didn't get him to chase me just for show, because when I finally murder him I know that the "chase" will make me look innocent? That's why "lethal intent" is the most important, and really the only important, factor - at least from a morally ideal perspective - if not a legal perspective in many/most jurisdictions.

Here's the thing though. Your argument, unless I am reading it incorrectly, revolves around hindsight 20-20. You appear to assume that the black man should simply know that the crazed boyfriend is unarmed and has no intent to kill him. How is he supposed to know that? At the moment, all he knows is that someone is tailing his car and is in an extremely agitated state.

When the man lunges out of the car, how is the black man supposed to know that he doesn't have a knife and is going to stab him to death?

You assume that he should know that someone who followed him to the police station and cut off his car immediately after he parked would be unarmed and ready for a good ol' fistfight?

Let's watch the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoALOGnl7...r_embedded

0:26 The black man is effectively corned. The aggressor has used the SUV to block off an escape route to the left and the door the black man had to open to get out of the car blocks his escape route to the right. Also, look at how little time he had to make a run for it. Didn't even have enough time to put on the parking break from the looks of it. So for one, he has no way to immediately escape.
0:27 The aggressor rushes out of the car and runs towards the black man. At what point does he get to see, "Oh yeah, he doesn't have a weapon and is not going to murder me. Let's have a rootin' tootin' fist fight now"?

There are a lot of questions that can't be answered for the prosecuting side, but some simple ones that can be answered for the defense:
1) The black man made a clear attempt to escape, but instead was closely tailed.
2) He ran towards a police station, which is a clear sign that he was looking for help from the law.
3) In the moment of truth he had no simple escape route.
4) The man who chased after him showed clear signs that he was looking for a fight, possibly murder.
5) He did not know if his aggressor was armed or not.
6) He did not kill the girlfriend.
7) He went directly to the police station instead of running from the scene of the crime.

[UrbanNerd]

80 posts tells me that ya'll are some bullet-buying mofos....LOL

[hydrogonian]

(11-30-2011 03:43 AM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(11-30-2011 01:32 AM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

No, he DID want to kill the aggressor.

In the moment that the man was lunging at him, he intended to shoot him in defense. Prior to that he showed zero intent of killing the man. He showed the opposite by running away to a police station, albeit unsuccessfully.

Quote:

In legal terms, "not wanting to kill" means that it was an accident. This wasn't an accident. He raised the gun, pointed and shot. You didn't read my prior post well enough. Revisit it, where I say that what you meant to say that was he "tried to avoid being put into a position" where he had to kill the aggressor. Once he kills, its irrelevant what he supposedly tried to avoid and didn't try to avoid. All that matters is the provable lethal intent of the dead person. If I get an unarmed guy to chase me around a track for a mile, after I finally turn and shoot him dead, it doesn't matter - versus shooting an unarmed man without running. Either way, lethal intent is what matters. "Chasing" doesn't prove lethal intent. How does a court know that I didn't get him to chase me just for show, because when I finally murder him I know that the "chase" will make me look innocent? That's why "lethal intent" is the most important, and really the only important, factor - at least from a morally ideal perspective - if not a legal perspective in many/most jurisdictions.

Here's the thing though. Your argument, unless I am reading it incorrectly, revolves around hindsight 20-20. You appear to assume that the black man should simply know that the crazed boyfriend is unarmed and has no intent to kill him. How is he supposed to know that? At the moment, all he knows is that someone is tailing his car and is in an extremely agitated state.

When the man lunges out of the car, how is the black man supposed to know that he doesn't have a knife and is going to stab him to death?

You assume that he should know that someone who followed him to the police station and cut off his car immediately after he parked would be unarmed and ready for a good ol' fistfight?

Let's watch the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoALOGnl7...r_embedded

0:26 The black man is effectively corned. The aggressor has used the SUV to block off an escape route to the left and the door the black man had to open to get out of the car blocks his escape route to the right. Also, look at how little time he had to make a run for it. Didn't even have enough time to put on the parking break from the looks of it. So for one, he has no way to immediately escape.
0:27 The aggressor rushes out of the car and runs towards the black man. At what point does he get to see, "Oh yeah, he doesn't have a weapon and is not going to murder me. Let's have a rootin' tootin' fist fight now"?

There are a lot of questions that can't be answered for the prosecuting side, but some simple ones that can be answered for the defense:
1) The black man made a clear attempt to escape, but instead was closely tailed.
2) He ran towards a police station, which is a clear sign that he was looking for help from the law.
3) In the moment of truth he had no simple escape route.
4) The man who chased after him showed clear signs that he was looking for a fight, possibly murder.
5) He did not know if his aggressor was armed or not.
6) He did not kill the girlfriend.
7) He went directly to the police station instead of running from the scene of the crime.

Its disheartening that you don't understand the logic as to why your arguments don't hold up, at all. I previously explained why they don't, and that logic still stands. Your going around in circles.

It doesn't matter that he didn't know or couldn't know that the guy was armed - that is never and will never be a justification for shooting. Its ridiculous that people actually believe that. I-t D-o-e-s-n-'-t m-a-t-t-e-r. In fact, that's the point. You HAVE to know, in every instance, before you shoot. If not, and you do kill, and he wasn't armed, you will be held criminally accountable most of the time - the exceptions being a significant size difference or a soft jury.

The guy should have had pepper spray. He had the wrong tool, used the wrong tool, and should have been held criminally accountable for that. It was excessive force, given the situation, with absolutely zero evidence to the contrary. So, he charges. So what? Where's the pepper spray?

If I was the prosecutor, I would have argued that the fact that this man thought to be in possession of a gun, but no non-lethal pepper-spray, and his willingness use the gun on a unarmed man, is evidence to the fact that the man was looking to murder someone - which he did. That would establish premeditation in a juries mind.

But the thing, is, my above argument is superfluous to what would be needed to convict him. All that is needed is that "no lethal intent can be proven". Boom, you are liable for the death and guilty. Case closed.

No where in the law does it state that you get to raise the stakes in a self defense situation, beyond what is justifiable., In fact, the law will put you in jail most of the time if you do. Kill someone in a bar fight? Jail. Kill someone in an unarmed road rage incident? Jail. Kill someone in an after school fight? Jail. Kill someone in that circumstance? In my opinion, jail. And that would be just in every one of those situations, unless deadly intent can be proven with SOME kind of hard evidence.

We can agree to disagree though.

However, I don't recommend getting a firearm. You have to have a more disciplined perspective on when it is and is not okay to shoot before you do. That's my opinion.

As I said before, the only relevant point, now is what you take away from this. To me, you are interpreting the situation in a way that would be against your best interest should you ever get a firearm. But, do what you will.

Quote:

At what point does he get to see, "Oh yeah, he doesn't have a weapon and is not going to murder me. Let's have a rootin' tootin' fist fight now"?

I don't care what his thought process is. You can't shoot someone for a fistfight. You can't. So, yes, you have a fistfight over pulling a trigger. That's how it works. You don't get to kill people for fistfights.

Is this even a serious perspective?

Some of this logic is unbelievable. And what kind of coward shoots someone because they don't want to get punched? If you don't want to get punched when you piss people off, have pepper spray. That's the correct tool for the job. Its your responsibility to have the correct tool and to refrain from using the wrong tool. YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. If you fuck that up, you go to jail. I can't hit the schoolyard bully with a shovel either, or shoot him. Wrong tools.

Just because you ONLY have the wrong tool doesn't mean that you won't go to jail, or you aren't a complete scumbag, if you use it. My god. That's YOUR fault, not societies, not the victims families, and not the victims. If the dead man didn't do anything to communicate true deadly intent, then the dead man is a victim. I think that this is boiling down to personal responsibility for your actions. No one wants to think that they are responsible anymore for unlawful or poor decision making, even if its out of fear or a complete accident. That's not how it works here. You are ALWAYS responsible for every bullet that leaves that gun, and so it better be completely and provably justified.

[All or Nothing]

(11-30-2011 12:17 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

It doesn't matter that he didn't know or couldn't know that the guy was armed - that is never and will never be a justification for shooting. Its ridiculous that people actually believe that. I-t D-o-e-s-n-'-t m-a-t-t-e-r. In fact, that's the point. You HAVE to know, in every instance, before you shoot. If not, and you do kill, and he wasn't armed, you will be held criminally accountable most of the time - the exceptions being a significant size difference or a soft jury.

I'll ask a couple last questions. Alright, let's just say hypothetically the Waller had decided to use his weapon because he did not know with 100% certainty that his attacker had a weapon. If the man who tailed him across town, cornered him and sprinted out of his car to attack him, got the opportunity to push the black man against the car, pull out a concealed gun and shoot the black man five times in the chest, would Waller simply be considered incredibly unlucky in this case?

You say it doesn't matter, but it does. The fact remains, Childress could have been carrying a concealed knife or gun. Also, the way Childress sprinted towards Wallace and attempted to lunge at him, is similar to the way an attacker carrying a concealed knife would lunge at someone. Is Waller supposed to wait until Childress gets to lunge at him and start stabbing him in the chest to find out?

Also, your line of logic is absolutely ridiculous. People carry concealed weapons all of the time. If I was in the same situation as Waller, I would have shot the Childress too. You know why? Because when a man chases someone across town, corners them and LUNGES at them, the chances are highly likely that they will be carrying a concealed weapon.

You said the fact that Childress tailed after Waller didn't matter. It does matter.
You said that it doesn't matter that Waller didn't know whether Childress was armed or not. It does matter.
You said that it didn't matter that Waller walked right over to the police station to allow himself to be arrested. It does matter.

Your line of thinking doesn't work because it ignores major parts of what actually happened. If Childress had spotted Waller in a bar, began talking shit to him and pushed him. Then Waller pulled out a gun and shot Childress that would be murder. If Childress saw Waller on the street and then hit Waller. Then Waller pulled out a gun and shot Childress that would be murder. Neither of those situations happened in the slightest. Instead Childress tailed Waller by car, used his SUV to corner Waller, giving Waller no clear escape route, then lunged at him in a fashion that would lead one to believe that he had a concealed knife.

If Childress carried concealed knives, would that change everything? That's where the problem lies, your argument relies on knowledge that Waller doesn't have and cutting out major parts of what actually happened.


I also looked up this case a little more: http://thecabin.net/news/local/2011-07-2...tbwzfJ9J3Q

Here's a quote from the defense:
"In an elaborate attempt to disprove the point made by the prosecution that Childress did not have a knife when he got out of his vehicle when he confronted Waller, Shaw began pulling knives from his pockets and laid them down for the jury to see.

He made his point by saying that “just because you couldn’t see the knives, doesn’t mean that I didn’t have them.”"

Quote:

If I was the prosecutor, I would have argued that the fact that this man thought to be in possession of a gun, but no non-lethal pepper-spray, and his willingness use the gun on a unarmed man, is evidence to the fact that the man was looking to murder someone - which he did. That would establish premeditation in a juries mind.

But the thing, is, my above argument is superfluous to what would be needed to convict him. All that is needed is that "no lethal intent can be proven". Boom, you are liable for the death and guilty. Case closed.

Look at this thread as a shining example. How many men who have chimed in on this thread have a gun, but no pepper spray? I'd make a bet, a legitimate bet that no man who chimed in saying he has a gun, also has pepper spray.

Also, premeditation? He pulled out the gun as a reaction to defend his life. Not as part of some sort of scheme to kill the man.