[clr]

The law is an interestingly fluid thing. I am quite familiar with 776. I was a police officer in Florida, I left that and became a federal agent, so I have a little bit of knowledge.

I actually wrote death or great bodily injury but deleted it, rather then explaining the whole law I chose to leave it in normal people speak, I didnt feel like giving a law class. are you familiar with the law definition of "AGGRAVATED"? What they all have in common, outside defending your home, is that they all have the reasonable belief that someone will be harmed greatly or killed.

GENERALLY in the state of florida, a fist fight is not seen as great bodily injury or death. Exceptions being a 300 lbs monster fighting a 120 lb guy or girl, where a person has a REASONABLE belief of said great bodily injury or death.

Both those guys looked about the same size, which makes me think the guy may have had a slick lawyer who may have worked a forcible felony angle. I dont know all the details but seeing that video looks like he used excessive force.

What I see is he wants to confront the guy. He stops at the stop sign, doesnt ram the car, again pulls in behind him, but again, stopped short, who is to say he wanted to to fight or just wanted to ask WTF? Thats my problem with the shooting.

[hydrogonian]

(11-22-2011 01:29 PM)basilransom Wrote:  

(11-22-2011 12:50 PM)clr Wrote:  

That is obviously murder, if you could just pull out a gun and shoot everyone that wanted to fight you....

Did you read my description or the accompanying story? Or the fact that he was acquitted?

If someone is coming to beat your ass, and you've desperately tried to avoid fighting, and they're about to lunge at you... then yes, I'd say shooting them constitutes self defense. He didn't start the fight, and tried his damndest to get away. Which is why he stopped at a police station and then turned himself in immediately afterwards.

If there had been more distance between their cars when they got out, the black guy could've waited a second for the white guy to register that the black guy had a gun, and the death may have been averted. But the white guy was too close and raging too hard to notice in time.

Whatever the case, even if you are about to get your ass beat by a bigger but unarmed man, you have to realize that there is a strong chance that you will go to jail for a long time if you shoot someone who is unarmed. At least in most states, unless they are in your house in a state with a castle law.

So, perhaps it can philosophically be determined to be self defense, but I don't think that its worth trying to justify shooting an unarmed man unless you are 100% certain that you will be killed if you do not. Then, sitting in jail is a better option, to some people, then is being dead. This guy was extremely lucky to get off, and he could have just as easily been convicted of murder. So, for anyone considering this situation, I'd say leave the gun holstered unless the other guy flashes a weapon. Its really the only way to possibly ensure that you aren't about to ruin the rest of your life. Even then, get the wrong jury, in an iffy situation, and your fucked.

[dk902]

I agree with the right to defend yourself using a gun.

I live in the UK and I feel hamstrung in many cases not having a gun to hand to defend myself should something go down in my house. Especially if I had a family to protect, I'd want to the reassurance that cold steel can provide.

Having said that, I do think Americans are overly gun-centric and many own to own and not enough caution or common sense (less than common) is used in many cases. Like not taking a piece out when you're drinking, shit is bound to go down.

What Timoteo says about many people not being responsible enough to be strapped is true and I think in many cases they're really not needed. However as Hydrogonian has alluded to - cops don't have a moral sense of duty any more than the rest of us. If you're in the middle of nowhere and something goes on, no state trooper is gonna be there to protect you.

[hydrogonian]

[quote='Farmageddon' pid='121752' dateline='1321990804']
[quote]
I don't see how anyone could call what happened in that video murder, it is clearly self defense.

The white guy is chasing the black guy, who is driving to a police station, when the white guy blocks him in and charges him all while the black guy simply stands his ground. The black guy didn't even shoot the second person who also charges him but instead retreats to the safety of the police station to turn himself in and get the proper authorities involved.
[/quote]

From where I stand, that is a clear case of murder that that man got away with. I don't care what his race is. If it were two white guys, or a white guy killing a black guy, I'd feel the same way.

In my opinion, you can only use deadly force when you feel that it is your only defense against deadly force or, perhaps, rape. From that video, I don't see how anyone could say that they could prove that the white guy had any deadly intent. He wasn't armed, correct? From the video, he charges the black guy to do what? To get in his face? to throw a punch? Who knows. Either way, deadly force isn't justified from my point of view. Deadly intent can't be proven, and that's why its important to only use a weapon with someone else who also has one. You absolutely do not have the right to kill someone who gets a little too mad at you, if he's unarmed. You can't shoot people for "charging" at you or for throwing punches. That's absolutely ridiculous. Otherwise, we'd have people killing others with impunity, left and right. People could provoke others into wanting to fight them relatively easily, and then shoot them when they try to. "oh, I used to have a bunch of enemies but I just told them all that I fucked their girlfriends in the ass two weeks ago, they all got pissed, and now they're all dead. problem solved." The jury was wrong, imo. That man got away with murder. It would be interesting to see if he re-offends in his lifetime.

If you find yourself "charged" upon, and only have a gun. Guess what? You aren't prepared to defend yourself with anything but your fists. You don't have the correct tool for the job. To be prepared for that, you should instead have pepper spray or perhaps a taser. If you don't, you're shit out of luck beyond throwing fists yourself, running, or calling the cops. Unless you want to be convicted of murder or are just looking to scare them with the sight of the gun, but not actually use it. That isn't always legal either, however. It isn't where I live.

Now should the assailant up the ante by having a bat or a knife, or if you are about to get assaulted by a mob, now you have a feasible tool in the gun, perhaps.

[Timoteo]

The sole mitigating factor in this was probably the extent the guy went to pursue a man that was trying to get away from him. Using his car to box him in, charging in anger, etc. against a man that committed no crime against him (though some would disagree with regards to fucking a guy's girlfriend...HA HA!)

A friend of my family went to prison many years ago for manslaughter, after defending himself in a fist fight. A guy came at him, he hit the guy, he went down and hit his head and died. He had no intent to kill - merely to defend himself. He didn't initiate it, just took care of business when someone attempted to harm him. He went to jail.

I understand how one guy having a gun, and another being unarmed seems like murder in principle, but at the same time he made a more than reasonable attempt to retreat and avoid violence. Should one man be forced to fight another, merely because one man is upset and wants to engage him for whatever reason? In another era, the white dude could slap the black dude in the face with a glove and challenge him to a duel. Or it could be pistols at 20 paces at dawn. It's a tragedy that someone had to die over this, but...

[Basil Ransom]

(11-22-2011 03:02 PM)clr Wrote:  

are you familiar with the law definition of "AGGRAVATED"? What they all have in common, outside defending your home, is that they all have the reasonable belief that someone will be harmed greatly or killed.

Given the behavior of the white man, Childress, and the fact that the black man, Waller, banged his girl, it seems there's a very good chance that they aren't going to play rock paper scissors to settle this one. So great harm doesn't seem like a distant prospect for Waller.

The letter of the law suggests Waller is in the clear, if our understanding of events is correct (over which we aren't arguing). Maybe the courts consistently (and mendaciously) interpret the law so as to make him a murderer, who knows.

Plus, the next law makes clear that had Waller stayed in his car and Childress tried to break in, Waller was well within his rights to shoot him.

Florida State Law Wrote:

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

*************************

(11-22-2011 03:02 PM)clr Wrote:  

What I see is he wants to confront the guy. He stops at the stop sign, doesnt ram the car, again pulls in behind him, but again, stopped short, who is to say he wanted to to fight or just wanted to ask WTF? Thats my problem with the shooting.

Maybe Childress wanted the satisfaction of beating him with his bare hands, instead of passive aggressively ramming him. Men have killed each other over infidelity, very frequently.

(11-22-2011 06:53 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

From where I stand, that is a clear case of murder that that man got away with. I don't care what his race is. If it were two white guys, or a white guy killing a black guy, I'd feel the same way.

From that video, I don't see how anyone could say that they could prove that the white guy had any deadly intent. He wasn't armed, correct? From the video, he charges the black guy to do what? To get in his face? to throw a punch? Who knows.

Now should the assailant up the ante by having a bat or a knife, or if you are about to get assaulted by a mob, now you have a feasible tool in the gun, perhaps.

Exactly. He could have been carrying a knife. You're Waller, you have no idea, and he's 5 feet away and sprinting towards you. You know he's mad as shit because you banged his girl, and you know that he knows. Like I said, men kill over this kind of thing, so thinking he wants more than a little thumb wrestling is very much justified.

Quote:

Either way, deadly force isn't justified from my point of view. Deadly intent can't be proven, and that's why its important to only use a weapon with someone else who also has one. You absolutely do not have the right to kill someone who gets a little too mad at you, if he's unarmed. You can't shoot people for "charging" at you or for throwing punches. That's absolutely ridiculous. Otherwise, we'd have people killing others with impunity, left and right. People could provoke others into wanting to fight them relatively easily, and then shoot them when they try to. "oh, I used to have a bunch of enemies but I just told them all that I fucked their girlfriends in the ass two weeks ago, they all got pissed, and now they're all dead. problem solved." The jury was wrong, imo. That man got away with murder. It would be interesting to see if he re-offends in his lifetime.

Except that Waller actively tried to avoid a fight, and the impetus for the fight was something that a man might kill over.

And I mean this on philosophical terms, as I don't know where the law stands on the following: What if you suck at fighting? I'm sure I could beat most women up, but if a guy is kicking my ass, twenty seconds in, I'm as good as a woman. Any equivalence or difference in size is irrelevant once one party is firmly on the ground. And at that point, the guy on the ground is completely at the mercy of the victor. The fair or unfair fight is a very hazy distinction.

And even if it weren't, why should I have to risk myself in a fight you started, and play by your rules? I don't own a gun, nor would I carry one around if I did. But if someone wants to fuck with me like that, after I had tried to avoid a fight, I think it's just to use deadly force in response. Barring the use of deadly force in the form of a gun just ensures that the guy with better fists wins.

PS: here's another vid I found:

Cliffs: Crazy homeless guy assaults cop who has his gun drawn. Cop struggles with crazy man, despite the intervention of another cop. One of the cops shoots the crazy man.

Here, I fully side with the cop, and think that the cop was within his rights to shoot him right before he first lunged. To be fair, Childress in the first video may have moved too quickly to see that Waller had a gun, unlike the crazy guy in this video.

[clr]

The main problem is exactly what Hydro said.

Deadly force is just that DEADLY, its not a video game. I do agree that game violence numbs people to gun violence. How many of you have had to point a gun and someone and contemplate taking their life? I have and I would in a heartbeat if I needed to BUT Shooting a guy that wants to kick your ass is not justified IMO.

If fear of getting your ass kicked allows you to shoot and kill someone? Think about what a slippery slope that is.... I cut someone off it traffic they say they are going to kick my ass I try to run away and they block me in can I just shoot him because he aggressively walks up to my car? Didnt even touch me yet? How do we know the guy didnt want to tell him to fuck off and never go near his girl friend again? Does that justify killing him? I think no.

I dont know all the details, and the devil is in the details BUT a guy chasing you, with NO weapon. Its not just being in fear, you have to be in fear of DEATH or great bodily harm. It must not have been an easy decision for the jury either if they took 8 hours to deliberate.

Either way, I would caution anyone on here, the law is usually quite clear on shooting someone in this instance, now had the guy walked up with a bat or knife etc... cool all good, this EASILY could have gone either way, I would have guessed that the guy would be convicted based on my experience. Just be careful.

[Basil Ransom]

(11-22-2011 11:27 PM)clr Wrote:  

I dont know all the details, and the devil is in the details BUT a guy chasing you, with NO weapon. Its not just being in fear, you have to be in fear of DEATH or great bodily harm. It must not have been an easy decision for the jury either if they took 8 hours to deliberate.

Either way, I would caution anyone on here, the law is usually quite clear on shooting someone in this instance, now had the guy walked up with a bat or knife etc... cool all good, this EASILY could have gone either way, I would have guessed that the guy would be convicted based on my experience. Just be careful.

Every law has the weakness of being a slippery slope. The law has to compromise somewhere, and draw the line somewhere. As lawyers like to say, hard cases make bad law.

In reference to this fight:
You say that if Childress had a knife, Waller's actions were acceptable. But Waller had no way of knowing if Childress had a knife. Or a gun. You and Hydro are asking a man to risk his life in the hands of an enraged cuckold, because maybe the cuckold just wants to practice a little sweet science before wheeling off the kids for some miniature golf. Men are famous for killing the sneaky fucker that banged their girl. There even used to be a Texas law that made this a justifiable homicide, if they were caught in the act. Waller had every reason to believe Childress would be armed.

It's not like no one has ever suffered permanent injury, brain damage or death at the hands of an unarmed man, especially one in the throes of sexual jealousy.

It sounds like you object to giving this guy much leeway because it makes your job as an officer much more messy and complicated. You care more about order than justice. And giving people more leeway to use deadly force means incurring legalized disorder, eg a man lawfully killing someone. If Childress had killed Waller, he'd clearly be guilty of murder. If he hadn't, then it would just be battery, assault or whatever. You would rather a man risk his life at the hands of a clear aggressor. By being passive, he makes it easier to discern who is right and who is wrong, and it helps preserve the state's monopoly on the use of deadly force. Yes, death is forever, which is why Childress should not have pursued Waller.

[clr]

No, i disagree because I value LIFE, How many dead bodies have you seen? Or weeping relatives? Or funerals of someone violently killed. Im not projecting my life, or playing overly sensitive, but I don't think a lot of people have a grasp on just what a thing it is to kill someone. Im usually quite a hard ass shoot em up guy, but only when someones life is threatened. Over a pissed off guy wanting to confront the guy who was shagging his girl? A broken nose can heal. You can't bring someone back to life. Let's use the situation of your dad catching this guy banging your mom, your dad drives off follows this guy and wants to tell him to leave his wife alone? Is it justified that your dad is killed for following the guy and wanting to tell him to fuck off? Thats how I see this.

I dont think the guy had a reasonable belief of death or great bodily harm, again devil is in the details, the guy could have been shouting I am going to kill you mother fucker, blah blah and that maybe sufficient for the guy to say he was in fear for his life.

Again, if you can shoot some everyone you thought they COULD have had a knife??? Seriously? Read hydro's post again. Slippery slope.

just my .02 interesting views on here for sure

[canucktraveller]

(11-22-2011 01:44 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

One of my best friends in LA ended up getting a gun because the worst-case scenario happened to him. He lives in Culver City now, so the chances of it happening have lessened, but in another area some dudes kicked in the door looking for someone, and thought he was that guy. He ran out of the apartment and down the street, and they fired at him. He vowed he'd never get caught in a helpless situation like that again, so now he has a piece (it's hilarious...I walked into his room, and he has a huge clear plastic bag full of bullets on the floor!). I'm all for having a piece in case trouble comes to your door (of course, will you be able to get to it in time? What if your place is burglarized, and someone steals it? And of course, if you have kids...these are the issues that come up when you have one even for home protection).

Only problem with that situation is that if he was carrying he would have more than likely been killed, instead of running away and surviving.


Unless you are highly trained you are not going to be able to take down multiple armed men before they get you. Hell the average person would have trouble killing a single assailant in the heat of the moment.

[Basil Ransom]

(11-23-2011 04:02 PM)canucktraveller Wrote:  

Unless you are highly trained you are not going to be able to take down multiple armed men before they get you. Hell the average person would have trouble killing a single assailant in the heat of the moment.

Uh, no.

(11-23-2011 12:54 PM)clr Wrote:  

No, i disagree because I value LIFE, How many dead bodies have you seen? Or weeping relatives? Or funerals of someone violently killed. Im not projecting my life, or playing overly sensitive, but I don't think aot of people have a grasp on just what a thing it is to kill someone. Im usually im quite a hard ass shoot em up guy, but only when someones life is threatened. Over a pissed off guy wanting to confront the guy who was shagging his girl? A broken nose can heal. You can bring someone back to life. Let's use the situation of your dad catching this guy banging your mom, your dad drives off follows this guy and wants to tell him to leave his wife alone? Is it justified that your dad is killed for following the guy and wanting to tell him to fuck off?

Again, if you can shoot some everyone you thought they COULD have had a knife??? Seriously? Read hydro's post again. Slippery slope.

You're assuming that Childress would not maim or kill Waller if given the chance, when the circumstances show there's a significant, positive chance of it happening.

Imagine this played out a hundred times, with the sorts of people who would fall into this scenario. And that each time, the man in Waller's position would not shoot the man in Childress' position as he did. In how many of those cases would the cuckold have a knife or gun on him? How often would the man afire with sexual jealousy win the fistfight, and proceed to maim or kill his opponent? The case is as much about these possibilities as it is about what actually happened. Why should Waller flip a coin for serious injury or death, after he's tried to get away? He had the police dispatcher on the phone.

You're only judging what did happen, and not what could've happened. All you see is a guy dying, so you conclude that the person who killed was in the wrong. The fact that Childress is an aggressor doesn't even figure in your judgment. And whatever the courts say, Waller's use of deadly force isn't a clear violation of the guidelines set forth in Florida's law.

[Timoteo]

(11-23-2011 04:02 PM)canucktraveller Wrote:  

(11-22-2011 01:44 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  

One of my best friends in LA ended up getting a gun because the worst-case scenario happened to him. He lives in Culver City now, so the chances of it happening have lessened, but in another area some dudes kicked in the door looking for someone, and thought he was that guy. He ran out of the apartment and down the street, and they fired at him. He vowed he'd never get caught in a helpless situation like that again, so now he has a piece (it's hilarious...I walked into his room, and he has a huge clear plastic bag full of bullets on the floor!). I'm all for having a piece in case trouble comes to your door (of course, will you be able to get to it in time? What if your place is burglarized, and someone steals it? And of course, if you have kids...these are the issues that come up when you have one even for home protection).

Only problem with that situation is that if he was carrying he would have more than likely been killed, instead of running away and surviving.


Unless you are highly trained you are not going to be able to take down multiple armed men before they get you. Hell the average person would have trouble killing a single assailant in the heat of the moment.

What you state is true, but at the same time I can't tell a guy he's wrong for wanting a gun after experiencing something like that. It's the point I made in an earlier post - sometimes having a weapon increases your chances of dying by gunfire. At the same time it's hard telling someone that is fearful for their lives that they are safer not being armed. In most instances, you won't see it coming, or if you do, your assailant is probably more committed to killing you than you are him. While you might have a weapon on you, he's probably already got his out and has the drop on you.

[Jim Kirk]

Great thread – lot of insightful material.

As shown here – there are several thoughtful opinions regarding the shooting – as either justified or not. You have all inadvertently shown that taking any criminal case to trial is a crapshoot.

Even though the shooter was acquitted – the following occurred:

He was booked, processed, jailed until someone made bail. The bail bond probably cost 3k to 5k – which the guy will not get back. If he hired a criminal lawyer experienced with taking deadly force cases to trial – he probably dropped 25k on that – which he will never get back. Shooter probably had to consider taking a plea bargain to manslaughter – and a 5 year ride – as opposed to facing a murder conviction and a 12 to 25 year ride in prison. The shooter sat there and waited at trial, etc.

What saved the black guy? The fact that he retreated to a police station. I would bet that the defense lawyer summed up to the jury to the effect that “Mr. Black guy committed adultery, yes, we know that – but when confronted by the enraged husband – Mr. Black guy didn’t fight, HE JUMPED IN HIS CAR AND DROVE TO A POLICE STATION. He was followed, blocked, and then only fired when he heard ‘I’m gonna kill you’ from the jealous husband. After firing, he ran into the police station and surrendered – are these the actions of a criminal – blah blah blah.

There are so many independent witnesses and video to the shooter trying to retreat.

The fact that he retreated to a police station and DID NOT try to run probably swayed the jury. We don’t know if the white guy was screaming I’m gonna kill you, etc. and we don’t know what transpired when the husband caught him.

In either event – as rightly pointed out here – mano against mano is usually not a deadly force scenario. If giving advice – the shooter should have ran for the door, down the block – or gotten (or stayed) into his car and closed the door. He at least should have gotten into a scrap.

While it ‘worked out’ – this is not something you should consider under these circumstances. In even the most racist area of the USA – based on the video we have I would bet that juries would convict 80% of the time.

[Jim Kirk]

As far as weapons advice - yeesh.

When I started taking formal classes - aside from people that had to carry a certain gun because their department forced them - you see a plethora of handguns. When you get to the intermediate level classes and times - you only see Glocks and high quality .45 gov't models - maybe a Browning High Power. When you get to the advanced classes - you see about 70% tuned .45 models and 30% tuned Glock models. A .45 gov't model shooter typically takes top gun of any class.

Sig's and Berrettas are nice and look cool. As with most German products - H&K is grossly over engineered. ALmost any H&K is designed to make it impossible to get a proper firing grip on the gun. Taurus from Brazil has aweful quality control.

My wife carries a Kahr P40.

The best way I can describe who can use weapons - I thought I could handle myself in a fist-fight. I joined a hard core dojo and got knocked out in about 20 seconds. You don't know how guns work and how to draw until you have had formal instruction. The 10 hour class by your local 300 pound NRA instructor does not count. He might be able to teach you some safety things and discuss the law - but until you field carry - you have no idea what you are doing. Assuming most of you have had no formal instruction - I will gun you all down before you clear leather much as I was knocked out 20 seconds after beginning a round of boxing.

@ Hydro - you North Philly? People fight all the time over there. Do you hunt or fish up in the Poconos - I am there all the time.

[Aliblahba]

(11-24-2011 01:21 AM)Jim Kirk Wrote:  

As far as weapons advice - yeesh.

When I started taking formal classes - aside from people that had to carry a certain gun because their department forced them - you see a plethora of handguns. When you get to the intermediate level classes and times - you only see Glocks and high quality .45 gov't models - maybe a Browning High Power. When you get to the advanced classes - you see about 70% tuned .45 models and 30% tuned Glock models. A .45 gov't model shooter typically takes top gun of any class.

Sig's and Berrettas are nice and look cool. As with most German products - H&K is grossly over engineered. ALmost any H&K is designed to make it impossible to get a proper firing grip on the gun. Taurus from Brazil has aweful quality control.

My wife carries a Kahr P40.

The best way I can describe who can use weapons - I thought I could handle myself in a fist-fight. I joined a hard core dojo and got knocked out in about 20 seconds. You don't know how guns work and how to draw until you have had formal instruction. The 10 hour class by your local 300 pound NRA instructor does not count. He might be able to teach you some safety things and discuss the law - but until you field carry - you have no idea what you are doing. Assuming most of you have had no formal instruction - I will gun you all down before you clear leather much as I was knocked out 20 seconds after beginning a round of boxing.

@ Hydro - you North Philly? People fight all the time over there. Do you hunt or fish up in the Poconos - I am there all the time.

Agreed completely on the 1911 models. For years I carried stock and custom Colt's, then to Para Ordnance, and finally Springfield Armory. I only carry a Glock 30 now b/c I'm too lazy to keep a single stack clean. The Glock usually stays in the truck for weeks on end w/out me worrying about it not firing. I also get a perfect natural point of aim when I pick up the Glock, which is hard to find, especially for a lefty.

[afronoob]

I see opinions and ideas but no EXPERIENCES,the defining measure of any worthwhile knowledge. Here are the gunfire exchanges experienced by myself and those I know personally.
14 years ago on a windy,dirt road my dad and a cousin were ambushed by carjackers-luckily I was driving,cause I immediately realised the boulder in the middle of the bridge was no accident. I began a high speed reverse. Out of the corner of my eye, I see a young nigga, coming out of the embankment on my side,running towards us yelling 'stop!'
I managed maybe 150 metres,(it was dark) before we rolled. Later on my dad said he saw the thug on my side aim at me from as close as the hood-somehow he missed,though I was twisting and turning. My cousin behind me got a 9 milly in the shoulder. If I was armed that unlucky carjacker would have eaten several .40s;I was aware and reacted instantly.

My uncle in 1990 heard a commotion outside the house after midnight. He opened the window and challenged-and received a rude reply. He fired 3 12 ga. rounds into the air and later said there was 'the sound of a football team stampeding.' He found enough crude weapons outside suggesting at least 10 criminals.
3 years ago a buddy of mine was jumped leaving a bar at one am. As he fell he managed to reach his browning at put 2 in the guys chest. A friend of a cousin was followed home. He had noticed the car early on. As soon as the gate was opened they rushed him,jacked him and held him prisoner. They found his beretta and took that along with his 535 il. This instance was a case of reluctant shooter-if you have it,use it when you must.

[germanico]

(11-22-2011 02:38 AM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

Secondary home defense or SHTF: Something full sized and reliable, probably with a large slide: Glock 17, 21, 22 (cartridge preference dependent) or a CZ 75B or SP-01. After all, you aren't carrying it and so weight and size is less of an issue,

I used to carry a CZ 75P. Its heavy, but not so much as to become an issue. It actually is a very comfortable gun.

[hydrogonian]

Quote:

You're assuming that Childress would not maim or kill Waller if given the chance, when the circumstances show there's a significant, positive chance of it happening.

You're only judging what did happen, and not what could've happened.

I understand how you think the way you do, which is logical in terms of self defense but its illogical in terms of the law. Which is the point that others here have been making.

Florida's specific self defense laws aside, generally, you are at great risk of a long jail stay if you shoot an unarmed man. No-matter-what.

That's the point, and I think he general message that professionals like Jim Kirk (attorney) and CLR (law enforcement) are trying to get across, based on their knowledge and experience.

Also, in my opinion, there is an moral issue that was violated in this shooting. I can see how a self defense logical "jump" can be made in the killers mind, but I can't justify it based on what I saw. But that is more subjective, and takes a back seat to the law and a juries opinion.

You have to realize that, in court, unless the assailant was armed, it is a low chance that the jury will make the "probably" jump to "deadly intent". Its just not provable without a weapon or at least a relentless beating taking place beforehand. If you shoot someone, you better be able to prove that there was deadly intent. That almost always takes the dead man having a weapon. Again, this case proves that there are exceptions, but to give yourself the best chance of staying out of jail, I wouldn't shoot unless he was armed. But that's just me.

Read this story. It's a bit famous in gun advocate circles:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15199221/ns/...-evidence/

This guy killed an essentially unarmed man and spent 5 years in jail for it. The difference, from the Florida case, is that the man Harold Fish killed had a long history of documented lunatic behavior. He also had a screw driver in his pocket, which could have been used as a deadly weapon. Fish still spent 5 years in jail and was lucky to get out. All of this because the man he shot was unarmed (the screwdriver was not in his hand - and Fish had no knowledge of it). Also, Fish was using a 10mm weapon. Be sure that the ammunition you use can't be construed as being "excessive" in its ability to injure or kill. Not that it matters in a logical sense (in that you are shooting to stop a threat to your life as fast as possible - bigger ammo will ostensibly accomplish that more consistently), but an uninformed and perhaps emotional jury will be deciding your fate - even if it was self defense. Prosecutors will try to twist your intent into premeditated murder, using any angle that they can get - inclusive of the fact that you are using "killer" ammunition that is too big or bad...

[hydrogonian]

(11-24-2011 03:26 AM)afronoob Wrote:  

I see opinions and ideas but no EXPERIENCES,the defining measure of any worthwhile knowledge. Here are the gunfire exchanges experienced by myself and those I know personally.
14 years ago on a windy,dirt road my dad and a cousin were ambushed by carjackers-luckily I was driving,cause I immediately realised the boulder in the middle of the bridge was no accident. I began a high speed reverse. Out of the corner of my eye, I see a young nigga, coming out of the embankment on my side,running towards us yelling 'stop!'
I managed maybe 150 metres,(it was dark) before we rolled. Later on my dad said he saw the thug on my side aim at me from as close as the hood-somehow he missed,though I was twisting and turning. My cousin behind me got a 9 milly in the shoulder. If I was armed that unlucky carjacker would have eaten several .40s;I was aware and reacted instantly.

My uncle in 1990 heard a commotion outside the house after midnight. He opened the window and challenged-and received a rude reply. He fired 3 12 ga. rounds into the air and later said there was 'the sound of a football team stampeding.' He found enough crude weapons outside suggesting at least 10 criminals.
3 years ago a buddy of mine was jumped leaving a bar at one am. As he fell he managed to reach his browning at put 2 in the guys chest. A friend of a cousin was followed home. He had noticed the car early on. As soon as the gate was opened they rushed him,jacked him and held him prisoner. They found his beretta and took that along with his 535 il. This instance was a case of reluctant shooter-if you have it,use it when you must.

Damn, those are some crazy stories AN, with the exception of the warning shot story (which is still instructive).

This sounds a little glib and perhaps not entirely true, but its lucky that criminals seem to often use shitty ammunition (your cousin taking the 9mm, probably 115g FMJ, and being okay - I assume that he caught it from the side and it didn't penetrate far enough to do real damage - like to his heart)

[afronoob]

(11-29-2011 12:55 AM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

(11-24-2011 03:26 AM)afronoob Wrote:  

I see opinions and ideas but no EXPERIENCES,the defining measure of any worthwhile knowledge. Here are the gunfire exchanges experienced by myself and those I know personally.
14 years ago on a windy,dirt road my dad and a cousin were ambushed by carjackers-luckily I was driving,cause I immediately realised the boulder in the middle of the bridge was no accident. I began a high speed reverse. Out of the corner of my eye, I see a young nigga, coming out of the embankment on my side,running towards us yelling 'stop!'
I managed maybe 150 metres,(it was dark) before we rolled. Later on my dad said he saw the thug on my side aim at me from as close as the hood-somehow he missed,though I was twisting and turning. My cousin behind me got a 9 milly in the shoulder. If I was armed that unlucky carjacker would have eaten several .40s;I was aware and reacted instantly.

My uncle in 1990 heard a commotion outside the house after midnight. He opened the window and challenged-and received a rude reply. He fired 3 12 ga. rounds into the air and later said there was 'the sound of a football team stampeding.' He found enough crude weapons outside suggesting at least 10 criminals.
3 years ago a buddy of mine was jumped leaving a bar at one am. As he fell he managed to reach his browning at put 2 in the guys chest. A friend of a cousin was followed home. He had noticed the car early on. As soon as the gate was opened they rushed him,jacked him and held him prisoner. They found his beretta and took that along with his 535 il. This instance was a case of reluctant shooter-if you have it,use it when you must.

Damn, those are some crazy stories AN, with the exception of the warning shot story (which is still instructive).

This sounds a little glib and perhaps not entirely true, but its lucky that criminals seem to often use shitty ammunition (your cousin taking the 9mm, probably 115g FMJ, and being okay - I assume that he caught it from the side and it didn't penetrate far enough to do real damage - like to his heart)

The velocity was slowed by his passenger side window. The round was just beneath the skin. I was there when the doc pulled it out. It didn't hit bone-just a flesh wound. What exactly do you disbelieve?

[latinapuslover]

anybody ever think for a second its was 2 guys white guys that were gonna beat this black guy to a pulp. ask yourself what would you do if you had 2 black guys chasing you in a car cause you banged his girlfriend. would you fight both of them and probably get beatin up into a pulp.

[Basil Ransom]

(11-29-2011 12:47 AM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

I understand how you think the way you do, which is logical in terms of self defense but its illogical in terms of the law. Which is the point that others here have been making.

Florida's specific self defense laws aside, generally, you are at great risk of a long jail stay if you shoot an unarmed man. No-matter-what.

The law says deadly force is allowed if you reasonably believe that great bodily harm is imminent. Your contention that the law is clearly not in support of Waller is false. A straightforward reading of the law suggests the law is in support of Waller.

(11-29-2011 12:47 AM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

You have to realize that, in court, unless the assailant was armed, it is a low chance that the jury will make the "probably" jump to "deadly intent". Its just not provable without a weapon or at least a relentless beating taking place beforehand. If you shoot someone, you better be able to prove that there was deadly intent. That almost always takes the dead man having a weapon. Again, this case proves that there are exceptions, but to give yourself the best chance of staying out of jail, I wouldn't shoot unless he was armed. But that's just me.

You have misread the Florida law. If there's a reasonable belief that grievous bodily harm may result, then the use of deadly force is justified. That means that probably is very much sufficient. You are asking a man to risk his life in the hopes that he gets just a nice left hook, but the law does not make this request. You can argue about what the likelihood is of a cuckold wanting to commit grievous bodily harm on the other man, but it is decidedly greater than 0%. What the reasonable threshold is, whether it's 20% or 50% or 70%, one may argue, but it's clear that the situation may have exceeded the threshold.

To say that the law does not support Waller, you must prove that the likelihood of Childress committing grievous bodily harm is low enough that Waller could not have had "reasonable belief" that Childress would grievously harm him. What Waller did is not clearly wrong... which is why he was acquitted. I contend that the risk was high enough to constitute a reasonable belief, so Waller was justfied in his use of deadly force.

(11-29-2011 12:47 AM)hydrogonian Wrote:  

Read this story. It's a bit famous in gun advocate circles:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15199221/ns/...-evidence/

This guy killed an essentially unarmed man and spent 5 years in jail for it. The difference, from the Florida case, is that the man Harold Fish killed had a long history of documented lunatic behavior. He also had a screw driver in his pocket, which could have been used as a deadly weapon. Fish still spent 5 years in jail and was lucky to get out. All of this because the man he shot was unarmed (the screwdriver was not in his hand - and Fish had no knowledge of it). Also, Fish was using a 10mm weapon. Be sure that the ammunition you use can't be construed as being "excessive" in its ability to injure or kill. Not that it matters in a logical sense (in that you are shooting to stop a threat to your life as fast as possible - bigger ammo will ostensibly accomplish that more consistently), but an uninformed and perhaps emotional jury will be deciding your fate - even if it was self defense. Prosecutors will try to twist your intent into premeditated murder, using any angle that they can get - inclusive of the fact that you are using "killer" ammunition that is too big or bad...

This case is a lot less clear cut than Waller's, so the fact that Fish was imprisoned doesn't mean, by extension, that Waller should have been. There was no recording of the event, nor as much evidence that the shooter tried to run from the dead man.

Further, the case created such a stir that the law was changed afterwards, in favor of a man caught in Fish's position.

Quote:

During the course of the trial, the Arizona State Legislature changed Arizona law relating to the burden of proof in self-defense cases. The law was changed effective April 24, 2006 when Governor Napolitano signed the new legislation. The self-defense burden was restored to 1997 standards and self defense no longer became an affirmative defense.

From http://www.haroldfishdefense.org/

From what little I've read of the case, the main reason Fish went to jail is because he had bad lawyers, and because he talked to the police. Pro-gun people are saying he did nothing wrong, and that the jury misunderstood guns, and the prosecution brought up irrelevant issues like the caliber of the gun. Prosecutors are in it for success, not justice nor enforcement of the law.

[clr]

Now it just sounds like you're grandstanding. As I said in many previous posts there's a difference between real life and what really happens in the real world and what someone with no real-world law-enforcement or judicial experience things should or would happen.

Hydro again is exactly on point. It would be like me trying to make an argument based off of using common sense for stock trading when I've never done any stock trading and then stock traders coming in at telling me I'm wrong and me arguing with them because one guy in one newspaper article got lucky in the stock market.

I can see the other side of the argument fine, but in unarmed man walking up to your car and you shooting him point blank without the guy even throwing a punch is going to place more people in jail then it is get them off Scott free.

Let's be honest here the guy was probably going to get his ass kicked but the chances of him getting killed or great bodily injury are very small.

people read the newspaper and all of these things Get sensationalized, so you think people go around and kill guys that bang their girl that shit just doesn't happen very often. In three years on the street here in Florida I saw guys get their ass whooped sure. The only time I remember ever seeing anybody go crazy after a guy that was banging his wife was a guy that picked up a machete and was trying to kill the other guy.

fair enough definitely shoot his ass but I've never seen anybody get killed from an ass whooping but sure everybody has heard a story of somebody punching somebody and I'm falling and hitting their temple and dying.

The other way would be easy to argue as well. The guy is on the phone with dispatch outside of a police station so who is he to fear 2 unarmed guys? Stay on the phone in side the car cops are going to be outside in a second.

[hydrogonian]

Quote:

What exactly do you disbelieve?

Where did you read that I disbelieve you? I believe you.

[hydrogonian]

@ Basilransom

I was going to reply with a point-by-point, but I think that its a waste of time here. I don't think that you grasp the logic, no personal offense. I'm just talking about this particular issue, not your general sense of logic.

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.

Otherwise, people could frequently kill one another and claim that they thought that their life was in danger, even when no weapon was held by the dead person, and therefore no intent being able to be proven other then perhaps the presence of, pretty much irrelevant, circumstantial evidence such as an affair. You claim that this video supports your interpretation of the spirit of the law, in that, yes, the guy was attacked and therefore he was justified in shooting an unarmed man. But, to get to the bottom of what the spirit of the law is, you have to assume that the law was not written with video recordings intended to support it. In any other circumstance when there is no recording, you would have to prove intent (as I believe you still do here - and that it wasn't proven - in my opinion). If there was no recording this guy would have gone to jail, probably for the rest of his life. A claim of "I thought my life was in danger" isn't, and shouldn't be, enough. Even with the recording, I think that he should have gone to jail for a long time. That's my opinion given the circumstance. But, he managed to pull a sympathetic jury.

In this country, you have to be able to prove deadly intent.

He shot an unarmed man, who had no deadly intent, that is provable. If you shoot someone, you have to prove deadly intent. Punches are not deadly intent. It's not up to the prosecutor to prove that he didn't have deadly intent. By your logic, you think that a killer, in that circumstance, is justified until someone proves "no deadly intent". That's not how it works, unless the case is handled badly, as I believe it was here.

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.