Its not always clear cut when you shoot someone

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sportdog

Until you learn to differentiate between "PC" and just plain "the right thing to do" you might want to do everyone a favor and leave the guns at home.

PS: Using negative buzz words like "PC" is pretty lame and really does not incite anyone other than people who allow themselves to be told by the far right what words are offensive.
 
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.
Click to expand...

part of my post (#2)

It does not, from the report, sound like shots fired in anger
Click to expand...

I use "in anger" as a generic term meaning that drawing or firing a gun with the intent to shoot another human being is "in anger". as opposed to pleasure or sport shooting.

Unfortunately, it appears these two guys were threatening each other before the incident. which makes the shooter suspect for premeditated.
Click to expand...

From post #2

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.
Click to expand...

OK, so playboy said it better. But the point is the same.

even if cleared by authorities he will face countless lawsuits and likely lose.
Click to expand...

Thats the bottom line!
been there, done that.
well, almost, the lawsuit was thrown out, but it cost me alot in lawyers fees and appearances.

JMHO
tom
 
WA

Go drink your Kool-Aid and leave me alone. Your half witted rational makes me :barf: I tried to get out of this but you seem to want to rub it in for me making a good value judgement to not engage with far left loons so let's just drop it. Now go ahead and get your last word in like a two year old. I'm finished!:rolleyes:
 
Counter-point for PBP

If a guy who I don't consider a physical threat, and who should know he doesn't stand a chance in a fistfight with me, decides to break in my door...

... I will probably assume he's brought a weapon. Otherwise, he'd just be stupid.

I agree the firefighter shouldn't have left provoking messages, and that he should have involved the police a bit sooner. However, I think it reasonable for him to have thought the decedent likely to be armed at the time of the break-in, based on behavior.

Granted, it's possible the decedent used a key, instead of kicking in the door, but it does say that the ex-girlfriend called the police when she heard the pounding on the door. It seems illogical that somebody who had a key would pound on a door more than once, before using the key. My inference would be that he broke it in, but maybe we'll get more facts reported at a later time.

Criminally, this should be "not guilty." The civil suit could be another matter.

Just my $.02.

Cheers,

M
 
There are alot of variables that need to be determined, completely seperate from the inflammatory comments made by the accused.

A man has a right to protect himself no matter where he is but especially in his home. From the report, it seems to me that the deceased entered into the home of the shooter without permission. However:

1. Did the intruder make furtive movements with his hands?
2. Were the intruder's hands hidden?
3. Did the intruder verbalize a threat of deadly force before the intrusion?
3. Did the intruder verbalize a threat of harm upon entry?
4. Was it dark?
5. Did the resident verbally challenge the intruder and the intruder failed to respond to commands?
6. Did the intruder agressively advance towards the resident?

If the answer to anyone of these questions is yes, the shooter may have a pretty solid defense.

If the answer to all of these questions is no, than the shooter used excessive force to stop the threat in my opinion.

No matter what, the guy is still dead and his kid doesn't have a father because of his own stupid action of entering someone else's home looking for trouble, whether or not the shooter was right or wrong.
 
In California the Handgun 'Study Guide' put out by the Department of Justice incldes a section on the use of lethal force. As I understand it, unless a 'reasonable person' (as determined by the jury) would have acted in the same manner, one is dead meat ... a beat down is the politically correct path to take. :eek:

Permissible Use of Lethal Force in Defense of Life and Body

The killing of one person by another may be justifiable when necessary to resist
the attempt to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime, provided that a reasonable person in the same or similar situation would believe that (a) the person
killed intended to commit a forcible and life-threatening crime; (b) there was
imminent danger of such crime being accomplished; and (c) the person acted
under the belief that such force was necessary to save himself or herself or another
from death or a forcible and life-threatening crime. Murder, mayhem, rape and
robbery are examples of forcible and life-threatening crimes (PC section 197).


Limitations on the Use of Force in Self-Defense


The right of self-defense ceases when there is no further danger from an assailant.
Thus, where a person attacked under circumstances initially justifying self-defense
renders the attacker incapable of inflicting further injuries, the law of self-defense
ceases and no further force may be used. Furthermore, a person may only use the
amount of force, up to deadly force, as a reasonable person in the same or similar
circumstances would believe necessary to prevent imminent injury. It is important
to note the use of excessive force to counter an assault may result in civil or
criminal penalties.
The right of self-defense is not initially available to a person who assaults another.
However, if such a person attempts to stop further combat and clearly informs the
adversary of his or her desire for peace but the opponent nevertheless continues
the fight, the right of self-defense returns and is the same as the right of any
other person being assaulted.
Click to expand...
 
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.
Click to expand...

Extremely good points there and is probably why I have trouble deciding. The dead man may have been a drain on society it appears that the shooter is the scum of society. At no point did it ever say that other than breaking down the door he made any hint of being armed and the shooter had already stated that he wasn't worried about fighting him.

It is all going to depend on which side of the bed the jury gets up on that day unless there are some more facts that we don't know.
 
Closed.

Insults, snide comments, rude behavior. :(

Too bad. This could have been a beneficial discussion.

pax
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top