Its not always clear cut when you shoot someone

Status
Not open for further replies.
It's never cut and dried when you fire a gun in anger.
Unfortunately, it appears these two guys were threatening each other before the incident. which makes the shooter suspect for premeditated.
even if cleared by authorities he will face countless lawsuits and likely lose.
Its taken me almost 6 years to fend off the lawsuits on a self defense shooting!
 
Seems pretty cut and dry to me. I doubt I would have done diferently. Think about it. A man busts down your door. What next? Does he want a hug?

It does not, from the report, sound like shots fired in anger, rather it sounds like a defence situation.........
 
I don't think their history of arguing weights in here, or at least it shouldn't. Would you want to be looked upon as a premedative killer just because you may have had to deal with tiring telephone calls from a nut for weeks before he blows your door in and comes at you?
 
Remember, this is a newspaper article. We don't have all the information the prosecutor and the police have. And then again, he may be being railroaded for some political reason, and at the end of the day the firefighter may well be exonerated. We just don't know enough.
 
Last edited:
Tiring phone calls

I think tiring phone calls from a nut is too distant a comparison to this situation. Not walking away (figuratively) from a conflict contributes to escalation. Exacerbating the situation by adding your own insults and taunts is proactive contribution to escalation. That will be weighed in.

There is no exact way to determine state of mind. But all you can do is examine behavior leading to an incident to determine how to distribute culpability. Yeah, yeah, I know you can't read minds and newspapers never get the facts right. But assuming they did ... it would be hard to show that the shooter wasn't looking for a fight, or even a reason to shoot. Even if that weren't true.
 
Last edited:
Sounds to me like the shooter should be charged. He chose to escalate a situation and even antagonize the victim.

I do not see any threats being noted from the victim and I do see where the shooter goes from saying he is a big guy and did not consider the guy a threat and then saying he feared for his life from the same disabled man.

I also see where the shooter decided not to call police and did not see any evidence of the victim presenting a deadly threat. Guys get into fist fights and shooting every guy you have an altercation with is not an option.
 
No victims here.

If someone is allowed to kick down a door/break into someone's house because they were insulted, then I better get an alarm system installed (and a reinforced door).

Forcing your way into an occupied dwelling should be viewed as intent to use deadly force. The boyfriend only used deadly force in response to the ex's display of intent and ability to inflict great bodily harm or cause death.

***This is all based on the news article!
 
If someone is allowed to kick down a door/break into someone's house because they were insulted,
Click to expand...
I do not see any evidence in the article of the door being "kicked down."

The only reference to the door that is an actual quote simple says the door "flew open."

If the shooting victim had previous residence there, has a child on the premises, and has until this time been allowed access to the home he did not break in.

The shooter knew the victim and stated he did not consider him a physical threat. Why did that suddenly change?
 
Here is another newspaper report on this case, that goes more into why the DA decided to prosecute:


http://www.kare11.com/news/ts_article.aspx?storyid=510781


Apparently the DA must feel that Huggett was somewhat responsible for provoking the attack. He did insult and belittle the man pretty bad. He obviously was trying to humiliate him.

Still, it was Peach who broke into Huggett's home, so this really does not seem right. After all, how was Huggett to know whether Peach was armed or not?? Do you stop and ask the person who has just broken into your dark home at night whether they have a gun on them??

Making that comment about Peach's son was pretty low of Huggett. He should never had said anything like that. It certainly will not win him any points with a jury.

To me, though, I'm doubtful that this will pass the beyond reasonable doubt test. For I think that it would be reasonable to think that Huggett could well have felt in fear of his life under these circumstances.

Wisconsin has become a pretty liberal state. Efforts to pass a "shall issue" CCW law there have failed in recent years. Wisconsin is one of only 2 states with no CCW program of any kind at all. Heck, Wisconsin is even one of only 7 states where even Tasers are outlawed!!

In light of that, Wisconsin's laws regarding use of deadly force may well be more restrictive than in states that we live in. It is really important to know the law in your state regarding the use of firearms.


.
 
Last edited:
From the second article:

Authorities also say Huggett, a Minneapolis firefighter, was in much better physical condition than Peach, and that, combined with the fact that Peach was unarmed, made the use of deadly physical force unnecessary.
Click to expand...

I guess in Wisconsin, if you might be tougher or at least as tough as someone breaking into your home unarmed, you are apparently expected to engage in physical hand to hand fighting inside your home, rather than risk killing the poor invader with a firearm. How sad is that? You never know how a fight will go, and even if you WIN, you can still be badly hurt in the process. I don't care what kind of names he was called, if he truly "forced his way in" he should be shot. And if I were on the jury there would be no worry. On the other hand, if the forcing in thing isn't quite as it sounds or seems, then perhaps charges are in order here.
 
Huggert was partly to blame with all his taunting. what the hell was he thinking. I suppose he was being a tough guy and all. Should he have shot him? i am not sure on that one but this i would say is that had he not sent all the text messages and such there would be no charges. Him telling Peach that he was gonig to be his sons father from now on was cold and uncalled for. also giving him such a hard time about being on social security disability was not good either. Should Peach have broke in to his house? No he should not have. Plenty of blame to go around!
 
We can say and speculate all we want. The fact is no matter what he said or text messaged, the guy had no right to breakin to the shooters house. I have had worse said to me and I never was so inclined to kick a door in.
 
Well I agree with the other posts we do not have all the information. I personally would have not traded text messages with some nut. I would have contacted the police and have a restraining order put on that wack job. As for kicking in my door if someone is willing to do that they are willing to be confronted by my Mossberg 500.
 
If nothing else, this thread should reinforce the notion that whether or not the use of lethal force is justified is not always clear. We seen in other threads folks making the assumption that if the use of lethal force is justified, certain things don't matter. But the point that tends to be ignored is that the justification is not always obvious and may be debatable.

Here's a case in which a number of members here think that the shooting was justified. Others are skeptical. There are arguments and factors on each side of the question. Based on what's been presented so far, if it comes to trial, a jury could go either way, A lot will depend on how good the prosecutor is and how good the defense lawyer is. A lot will depend on exactly what the evidence on each side is and how it's presented. And the character and reputation of the firefighter defendant will probably also be an important factor.

So sure, maybe somethings aren't an issue if it's a "good shoot." But as this case shows, everyone agreeing that it's a good shoot is not a foregone conclusion.
 
If the 'victim' really needed social security disability why was he going to head across town to engage in a physical fight? sounds like a lowlife mooching off tax payers.

If he breaks into a home with it being clear a fight is about to happen its murder to kill him if he is smaller than you and pretending to be disabled? Glad I live in TEXAS where things make sense... The firefighter would have been no billed here.

OTOH if a person is ever desperate they should head north with crutches and plunder away with impunity. :barf: :rolleyes: :mad:
 
Hey primlantah!

Beautiful to see that you cut through the political correctness and used most likely the reality of the situation. I pretty much feel the same way but tried to tiptoe around and not just say it. My bad.....Good for you!;)
 
This wasn't a "break in" where the shooter was taken off guard and surprised in his home by any means. This was a dispute he encouraged and incited with someone he had personal ties with and who he clearly stated he did not consider a physical threat. He was also able to see the victim pull up, get out of his car, and approach the door. There were many other things he could have done but chose to sit and wait with the intention of shooting the other man. That is the definition of premeditated.

The victim made mistake which, even though provoked, he should not have made; but none of them were worth being killed over. If you think different I would highly question you competence to make a good decision as to when to shoot someone and I understand why so many people would use example like you as a reason why people should not have guns.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top