Tennessee Gentleman
New member
RDak said:Yes, but I'd have you as a witness TG!!!
Yeah, I remember something from my Army days along the lines of "You lie and I'll swear to it" or something like that.
RDak said:Yes, but I'd have you as a witness TG!!!
WOO-HOO!!! I WAS RIGHT!!!He was, by the above definitions, railroaded.
Antipitas said:He was, by the above definitions, railroaded.
Antipitas said:There was insufficient evidence to get a conviction, had the errors not occured.
If someone continues to charge me although warned, and although I have a legally held weapon in my hand, should I have any reason to believe they won't attempt to take that weapon from me and use it against me? The person has already demonstrated aggressive, unwarranted behavior.
TG: I would say unless you are truly left with no other options, then disengaging, descalating and trying to get the Heck out of Dodge might be better.
The challenge with a SD claim that is different from a normal murder charge is you have to admit that you intentionally shot the other guy when you raise the claim of SD. That alone is accomplishing a lot of the prosecutor's case needed to put you away. I am not sure burden of proof will make that much difference if you shoot an unarmed man and can't show some justification like disparity of force. A man is dead and if the jury thinks it isn't fully justified you may be taking that long government paid vacation.
maestro pistolero said:Would the reasonable (if so adjudicated) fear of being disarmed of your legally held weapon and murdered constitute legitimate self defense?
A vastly greater degree of force-drawing a weapon that threatens deadly force before the same has been threatened against he who draws-voids the claim of reasonable self defense if a killing occurs
This is not entirely true. The prosecuting attorney and defense attorney have different roles and obligations. Specifically, the prosecutor is not permitted to "win at all costs". He is obligated to turn over any and all evidence he recovers that he will present at trial or which could be exculpatory. It is also an ethical violation for a prosecutor to bring to trial someone he knows not to be guilty of the crime, regardless of the evidence - in other words, if he knows the evidence is dubious, he can't bring charges against the defendant.One must also remember that our justice system is an adversarial system which means that each side, just like in a football game, is required to do their best ot win the case. Seldom does justice come into play but rather winning or losing for your side. In this case the prosecutor did a better job than the defense. The appeals court ruled that the referee (judge) made some incorrect calls and a rematch was in order.
B.N.Real said:He fires warning shots at the dogs but kills Mr. Kuenzli? Why would you do that?
why would you fire another warning shot?He fires warning shots at the dogs but kills Mr. Kuenzli?
Why would you do that?
mavracer said:why would you fire another warning shot?
because you fear grave bodily harm or death.Why fire any at all?
mavracer said:because you fear grave bodily harm or death.
Yes many people seem to think a dead victim laying in the alley/boonies is somehow morally superior to the person with the smoking gun explaining to the cops how the criminal got the bullet wound.Many CCW instructors tell you not to do that and in some states that is against the law.