Defensive shooting, or first degree murder?
- Thread starter bestdefense357
- Start date
Defense works to stop retrial of murder case
LISA TURNER
ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE
WALNUT RIDGE -- Dan Callahan says he was only trying to prevent a killing when he shot Randy Lawson to death last summer.
In the early morning hours of July 28, 1999, a fight broke out between Lawson and Charlie Moore in the Lawrence County town of Black Rock. Lawson had beaten Moore to the ground with a baseball bat, Callahan told police, so he pointed his .22-caliber rifle at Lawson and squeezed the trigger.
Lawson was shot three times and ran bleeding to a nearby house. He died a short time later at the Lawrence Memorial Hospital in Walnut Ridge.
Arguing that Callahan, 39, was not in imminent danger and could not use deadly force, prosecutors charged him with first-degree murder. The case ended in a mistrial July 26 after jurors suggested that they had been intimidated by Lawson's family and friends.
Callahan's defense attorney is expected to argue against a second trial, citing double jeopardy, during a hearing in Newport that begins today. The case is scheduled to go to trial Sept. 11 in Jackson County Circuit Court.
In a motion to Third Judicial District Judge Harold S. Erwin, defense attorney Dustin McDaniel wrote that double jeopardy comes into play because the first trial was stopped against the defendant's wishes, and the prosecution failed to prove the state's case had been damaged.
Two days into the murder trial, the jury requested a private meeting with the judge. Court records show a male juror complained that Lawson's family was shadowing jurors in the courthouse halls and following them to restaurants, sitting near jurors while they ate.
"We move, they move with us," the juror told Erwin.
The man also told the judge that he was shopping at a Walnut Ridge store when one man in a group of three remarked loudly, "If Mr. Callahan's not convicted, he's not going to make it, and the jury's not going to make it."
Prosecuting Attorney Stewart Lambert said it was obvious the jurors had been intimidated to the point that they could not be impartial.
"They all heard from the male juror that he was told harm would come to the jury if they didn't convict Dan Callahan," Lambert said. "If that's not intimidation, I don't know what in the world is."
McDaniel counters that no juror actually said he was intimidated, rather that he was more annoyed by Lawson's supporters.
"No juror ever said they felt intimidated," McDaniel said. "The prosecutor said they were intimidated. The law states clearly you can't assume a jury is prejudiced, you have to prove it."
Efforts to reach members of Lawson's family were unsuccessful.
Lambert said he requested a mistrial because he was afraid the jury would be unable to separate the Lawson family's demands for a conviction from the prosecution's.
"That reflects badly on the state," he said.
Though Callahan's new trial is supposed to begin in three weeks, McDaniel said it won't happen. If Erwin denies the defense's request for dismissal, McDaniel said he will appeal to the state Supreme Court, which would likely delay the second trial.
"We won't go to trial Sept. 11," McDaniel said.
This article was published on Thursday, August 31, 2000
----------
From the information presented, this was a good shoot.
LISA TURNER
ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE
WALNUT RIDGE -- Dan Callahan says he was only trying to prevent a killing when he shot Randy Lawson to death last summer.
In the early morning hours of July 28, 1999, a fight broke out between Lawson and Charlie Moore in the Lawrence County town of Black Rock. Lawson had beaten Moore to the ground with a baseball bat, Callahan told police, so he pointed his .22-caliber rifle at Lawson and squeezed the trigger.
Lawson was shot three times and ran bleeding to a nearby house. He died a short time later at the Lawrence Memorial Hospital in Walnut Ridge.
Arguing that Callahan, 39, was not in imminent danger and could not use deadly force, prosecutors charged him with first-degree murder. The case ended in a mistrial July 26 after jurors suggested that they had been intimidated by Lawson's family and friends.
Callahan's defense attorney is expected to argue against a second trial, citing double jeopardy, during a hearing in Newport that begins today. The case is scheduled to go to trial Sept. 11 in Jackson County Circuit Court.
In a motion to Third Judicial District Judge Harold S. Erwin, defense attorney Dustin McDaniel wrote that double jeopardy comes into play because the first trial was stopped against the defendant's wishes, and the prosecution failed to prove the state's case had been damaged.
Two days into the murder trial, the jury requested a private meeting with the judge. Court records show a male juror complained that Lawson's family was shadowing jurors in the courthouse halls and following them to restaurants, sitting near jurors while they ate.
"We move, they move with us," the juror told Erwin.
The man also told the judge that he was shopping at a Walnut Ridge store when one man in a group of three remarked loudly, "If Mr. Callahan's not convicted, he's not going to make it, and the jury's not going to make it."
Prosecuting Attorney Stewart Lambert said it was obvious the jurors had been intimidated to the point that they could not be impartial.
"They all heard from the male juror that he was told harm would come to the jury if they didn't convict Dan Callahan," Lambert said. "If that's not intimidation, I don't know what in the world is."
McDaniel counters that no juror actually said he was intimidated, rather that he was more annoyed by Lawson's supporters.
"No juror ever said they felt intimidated," McDaniel said. "The prosecutor said they were intimidated. The law states clearly you can't assume a jury is prejudiced, you have to prove it."
Efforts to reach members of Lawson's family were unsuccessful.
Lambert said he requested a mistrial because he was afraid the jury would be unable to separate the Lawson family's demands for a conviction from the prosecution's.
"That reflects badly on the state," he said.
Though Callahan's new trial is supposed to begin in three weeks, McDaniel said it won't happen. If Erwin denies the defense's request for dismissal, McDaniel said he will appeal to the state Supreme Court, which would likely delay the second trial.
"We won't go to trial Sept. 11," McDaniel said.
This article was published on Thursday, August 31, 2000
----------
From the information presented, this was a good shoot.
I hate articles like this -- they always raise more questions than they answer.
As near as I can tell, one man had beaten another man to the ground with a baseball bat. A third man (the defendant in this case) shot the guy with the baseball bat.
Now, barring the release of any other information, it sounds like the defendant acted to prevent death or serious bodily injury to another person. Texas law says this is justified. I don't know wht Arkansas law says on the subject.
LawDog
As near as I can tell, one man had beaten another man to the ground with a baseball bat. A third man (the defendant in this case) shot the guy with the baseball bat.
Now, barring the release of any other information, it sounds like the defendant acted to prevent death or serious bodily injury to another person. Texas law says this is justified. I don't know wht Arkansas law says on the subject.
LawDog
You know its for the Children 
Agreed,,,too many "????'s"
The guy who was shot might have been being beaten by the other two and wrestled the bat from one of them so the other perp shoots him.
Who instigated the fight?
Had these people had problems in the past?
------------------
Satanta, the Whitebear
Sat's Realm: http://SatantasRealm.tripod.com/Entrypage/entrypage.html
My Disability petition: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/DisbHelp/petition.html
The guy who was shot might have been being beaten by the other two and wrestled the bat from one of them so the other perp shoots him.
Who instigated the fight?
Had these people had problems in the past?
------------------
Satanta, the Whitebear
Sat's Realm: http://SatantasRealm.tripod.com/Entrypage/entrypage.html
My Disability petition: http://www.PetitionOnline.com/DisbHelp/petition.html
FWIW, the aftermath of this incident recalls what one of my concealed handgun instructors tried to emphasize. He said: "Don't be a hero--the life you save may cost you yours." He was thinking in terms of indictments, lawsuits, and legal fees. Society used to value good samaritans. I guess this value has been lost. But whether this directly pertains to the Arkansas incident, I don't know.
A bit of digression is in order. First, an individual is permitted to use self defense against unlawful threat of death or great bodily injury. You don't have to stand still and wait for the ax to fall. Now, some jurisdictions extend the privilege to family members. Thus, a husband may intervene to prevent the rape of his wife or a mother the death of her child. Other states go even further and allow strangers to intercede. Since Callaghan was prosecuted, I don't think AK allows for the defense of non-relatives; which Callaghan and Moore are.
Here's where problems arise. Person A is the aggressor who attacks Person B. A gets the better of B and is about to strike a deadly blow. Person C comes along and shoots A. Privilege? Yes, because B is the victim and A is the attacker. Now, given the same scenario but in this case, B gets the better of A and is about to strike a deadly blow in self defense. Person C comes along and shoots B. Opps.
Callaghan rose to the defense of Moore. So, the issue becomes did Moore have a right to resort to deadly force at the point that Lawson stood over him with a bat? If a reasonable person would believe that Lawson would strike Moore, then Moore would be privileged. If Moore is privileged, then in certain jurisdictions Callaghan would have been privileged to shoot.
We really don't know since crucial details are lacking. Was the bat poised as if it were to be used to strike Moore? Did Lawson say something which would indicate that a blow was forthcoming? Were there any feasible alternatives like shooting the bat or issuing a verbal warning?
Of course, there is the illegal and immoral approach of shooting everybody and letting God sort them out, but let's not go there (hey, you can tell it's past my bed time).
Here's where problems arise. Person A is the aggressor who attacks Person B. A gets the better of B and is about to strike a deadly blow. Person C comes along and shoots A. Privilege? Yes, because B is the victim and A is the attacker. Now, given the same scenario but in this case, B gets the better of A and is about to strike a deadly blow in self defense. Person C comes along and shoots B. Opps.
Callaghan rose to the defense of Moore. So, the issue becomes did Moore have a right to resort to deadly force at the point that Lawson stood over him with a bat? If a reasonable person would believe that Lawson would strike Moore, then Moore would be privileged. If Moore is privileged, then in certain jurisdictions Callaghan would have been privileged to shoot.
We really don't know since crucial details are lacking. Was the bat poised as if it were to be used to strike Moore? Did Lawson say something which would indicate that a blow was forthcoming? Were there any feasible alternatives like shooting the bat or issuing a verbal warning?
Of course, there is the illegal and immoral approach of shooting everybody and letting God sort them out, but let's not go there (hey, you can tell it's past my bed time).
Mordwyn.45
New member
In Fla a person may use deadly force if:
A) They are in imminent threat of deadly harm and are unable to retreat.
B) Are the witness to a "strong arm felony" I.E a rape or armed robbery
in the case of B the CCW needs to "put on the other persons shoes" and if you can RESONABLY say that the other person was in jepardy for their life then such force can be used.
If I was witness to such a fight and saw that person A was about to bash person B's skull in with said Baseball bat I'd use as much force as needed to stop person B.
At 6'5" 300 lbs that might be a running cross body check to person B before I drew and fired, but then again I wasn't there.
How far away was the shooter from the assailant, and would it have been impossible to stop him any other way?
It all boils down to what is AK law pertaining to the use of deadly force.
------------------
"TANSTAAFL"- R.A. Heinlen
"Molon Labe"- Leonidas to Xerxes at Thermopile
A) They are in imminent threat of deadly harm and are unable to retreat.
B) Are the witness to a "strong arm felony" I.E a rape or armed robbery
in the case of B the CCW needs to "put on the other persons shoes" and if you can RESONABLY say that the other person was in jepardy for their life then such force can be used.
If I was witness to such a fight and saw that person A was about to bash person B's skull in with said Baseball bat I'd use as much force as needed to stop person B.
At 6'5" 300 lbs that might be a running cross body check to person B before I drew and fired, but then again I wasn't there.
How far away was the shooter from the assailant, and would it have been impossible to stop him any other way?
It all boils down to what is AK law pertaining to the use of deadly force.
------------------
"TANSTAAFL"- R.A. Heinlen
"Molon Labe"- Leonidas to Xerxes at Thermopile
Based solely on the information available in the article, and without knowing AK law, I'd call it a justified shoot. As others have pointed out though, there's too much we don't know.
------------------
"...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
Luke 22:36
"An armed society is a polite society."
Robert Heinlein
"Power corrupts. Absolute power - is kinda cool!"
Fred Reed
------------------
"...and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."
Luke 22:36
"An armed society is a polite society."
Robert Heinlein
"Power corrupts. Absolute power - is kinda cool!"
Fred Reed
In the eyes of Texas (I think) - and using ONLY the information given:
At the point described, it is irrelevant who the initial aggressor was.
- IF the guy on the ground is no longer a threat, and
- IF the guy standing represents imminent deadly force against the neutralized
threat (the guy on the ground),
- THEN the guy standing can be stopped by a bystander who uses force or deadly
force to stop/neutralize the (standing) guy with the bat because he is the only
imminent threat of illegal deadly force (which is illegal because the guy on the
ground has been neutralized and no longer represents a threat).
Again, this is based ONLY upon the statements above.
If the guy on the ground is trying to bring a firearm to bear (which is not so stated
above), then the guy standing could use the ball bat legally. Otherwise, the
(standing) guy with the ball bat apparently is attempting to use deadly force against
a neutralized threat. I would believe that's grounds for intentional manslaughter or
murder.
LawDog?
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited September 01, 2000).]
At the point described, it is irrelevant who the initial aggressor was.
- IF the guy on the ground is no longer a threat, and
- IF the guy standing represents imminent deadly force against the neutralized
threat (the guy on the ground),
- THEN the guy standing can be stopped by a bystander who uses force or deadly
force to stop/neutralize the (standing) guy with the bat because he is the only
imminent threat of illegal deadly force (which is illegal because the guy on the
ground has been neutralized and no longer represents a threat).
Again, this is based ONLY upon the statements above.
If the guy on the ground is trying to bring a firearm to bear (which is not so stated
above), then the guy standing could use the ball bat legally. Otherwise, the
(standing) guy with the ball bat apparently is attempting to use deadly force against
a neutralized threat. I would believe that's grounds for intentional manslaughter or
murder.
LawDog?
[This message has been edited by Dennis (edited September 01, 2000).]
Arkansas law say that you can use deadly force on a perp that is commiting a violent act on a third party. We just went through this last week in our CCW class. The county prosecuter explained it in depth. Just as you can shoot a BG holding up a liquor store or a PDQ or a 7-11, you CAN use deadly force to prevent further injury to a third party.
It is the LAW.
Apparently the shooter had reason to beleive that the victim was in imminent danger and feared for his life. All the jury should have to decide is if the shooter acted in a "reasonable manner" as anyone in the same situation may have.
I'd be willing to bet that if this story and facts were true...the shooter will get off.
As our CCW laws are tried and tested , many prosecuters are not aware of the letter of the law. It is as much a learning experience for them as anyone else on what can and cant be done as far as the law goes. Some have little common sense, no amount of law can make up for that. Some have political agend that they are trying to advance and some just downright hate guns.
Was the guy justified in shooting? Could he have stopped the attack without shooting ? Did he act in a resonable manner ?
That is what the jury must decide.
BTW ...the state abreviation for Arkansas is AR, not AK-Alaska.
It is the LAW.
Apparently the shooter had reason to beleive that the victim was in imminent danger and feared for his life. All the jury should have to decide is if the shooter acted in a "reasonable manner" as anyone in the same situation may have.
I'd be willing to bet that if this story and facts were true...the shooter will get off.
As our CCW laws are tried and tested , many prosecuters are not aware of the letter of the law. It is as much a learning experience for them as anyone else on what can and cant be done as far as the law goes. Some have little common sense, no amount of law can make up for that. Some have political agend that they are trying to advance and some just downright hate guns.
Was the guy justified in shooting? Could he have stopped the attack without shooting ? Did he act in a resonable manner ?
That is what the jury must decide.
BTW ...the state abreviation for Arkansas is AR, not AK-Alaska.
bestdefense357
New member
If I get additional info, I'll let you know. Robert