Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Source: http://m.jsonline.com/more/news/cri...-in-fatal-shooting-b99180038z1-239316951.html
Summary: A CHL is invited out for a night on the town by his girlfriend's brother. He is in a car with 4 guys, one of whom he has had prior disagreements with. At some point he becomes uncomfortable and asks to be dropped off at his car. The guy he has previous issues with gets offended, pulls him out of the car and begins beating him unprovoked (according to all witnesses). After being knocked to the ground and having his shirt pulled up around his head, he gets back up, pulls his gun and shoots his assailant in the face at a distance of about 8 feet (which is what he estimated for police investigators but at trial he said he was foggy on details). This is the first time he has ever shot a gun.
Subsequently he is charged and convicted by the jury. According to a local radio show, the distance, the prior disagreement, and statements made to police immediately after the shooting that conflicted with his trial testimony caused the jury to conclude it was a "revenge" shooting and not a defensive one. The same story cites another CHL who shot an unarmed man but was acquitted.
I thought there were some valuable discussion issues here. On it's face, it looks as though all the elements of Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy were satisfied to meet the requirements for self-defense. Yet this man was sentenced to 42 years because it was "just a fist fight." I think this story highlights how dangerous an emcounter between a CHL and an unarmed person can be for the CHL.
Some points particularly worth highlighting:
1. Not doing stupid things with stupid people is still one of the best ways to avoid stupid situations.
2. His testimony to police after the incident (without a lawyer) not only didn't help him avoid arrest, it also helped convict him.
3. Right or wrong, many people do not see "just a fist fight" as justification for use of lethal force.
Summary: A CHL is invited out for a night on the town by his girlfriend's brother. He is in a car with 4 guys, one of whom he has had prior disagreements with. At some point he becomes uncomfortable and asks to be dropped off at his car. The guy he has previous issues with gets offended, pulls him out of the car and begins beating him unprovoked (according to all witnesses). After being knocked to the ground and having his shirt pulled up around his head, he gets back up, pulls his gun and shoots his assailant in the face at a distance of about 8 feet (which is what he estimated for police investigators but at trial he said he was foggy on details). This is the first time he has ever shot a gun.
Subsequently he is charged and convicted by the jury. According to a local radio show, the distance, the prior disagreement, and statements made to police immediately after the shooting that conflicted with his trial testimony caused the jury to conclude it was a "revenge" shooting and not a defensive one. The same story cites another CHL who shot an unarmed man but was acquitted.
I thought there were some valuable discussion issues here. On it's face, it looks as though all the elements of Ability, Opportunity, and Jeopardy were satisfied to meet the requirements for self-defense. Yet this man was sentenced to 42 years because it was "just a fist fight." I think this story highlights how dangerous an emcounter between a CHL and an unarmed person can be for the CHL.
Some points particularly worth highlighting:
1. Not doing stupid things with stupid people is still one of the best ways to avoid stupid situations.
2. His testimony to police after the incident (without a lawyer) not only didn't help him avoid arrest, it also helped convict him.
3. Right or wrong, many people do not see "just a fist fight" as justification for use of lethal force.