You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Man Claims Self-Defense, Charged With Murder
- Thread starter Bartholomew Roberts
- Start date
Spats McGee
Administrator
I can't get to youtube from work to watch the video, so I'll beg your indulgence if I'm guessing at things that would be obvious (if I could see the video).GlockedNLoded32 said:I do see you point but from my stand point if i was in wallers situation i would not shoot an unarmed man no matter how agressive childress was...I guess that's just because im a decent size guy who has self defense training and a much more leveled head . . . .
What I don't know at this point is: Did Waller know that Childress was unarmed? I'm a very level-headed guy, but my simply "takin' a whoopin'" ain't in the cards. I'm too old to brawl, and too fat to run. Once an aggressor gets a few licks in, there's the possiblity that: (a) the aggressor could get ahold of my CCW and make the situation go from bad to horrific; or (b) the aggressor could arm himself some other way. . . . again, bad to horrific.
Again, did Waller know that Childress was unarmed? If the allegations are true, that Waller had been playing patty-fingers with Childress' girlfriend, . . . or even if Waller knew of the allegations, and Childress had threatened him, as BR states in the OP, then Waller may have had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm.GlockedNLoded32 said:... but to shoot an unarmed man in the street in front of his kids ans girlfriend is just morally wrong to me...
Some are of the apparent opinion that if you mess with someone else's woman it is open season on you. First off, a woman is not a possession - she had a choice, too. Secondly, the repeated description of her as the wife of Childress is incorrect - she appears to be a long-time girlfriend who has borne him children, but they were not married, and she was unfaithful with at least one other man - the shooter.
It is an ugly situation with an unmarried woman bearing children to (apparently) one man and choosing to sleep with another. Society works better when certain boundaries are respected. No halos are in sight. But I don't see how anyone in this mess should be expected to waive the right to self defense, and I see no reason in law or reasonable behavior that Childress should expect to take physical revenge on his girlfriend's other lover with no restraint or consequences.
It is an ugly situation with an unmarried woman bearing children to (apparently) one man and choosing to sleep with another. Society works better when certain boundaries are respected. No halos are in sight. But I don't see how anyone in this mess should be expected to waive the right to self defense, and I see no reason in law or reasonable behavior that Childress should expect to take physical revenge on his girlfriend's other lover with no restraint or consequences.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
GlockedNLoaded32 said:I do see you point but from my stand point if i was in wallers situation i would not shoot an unarmed man no matter how agressive childress was...
Looking at the video, Waller and Childress roll up to the parking spot around 0:23 seconds (both having run the stop sign in front of the police station). Both begin to exit their vehicles around 0:26 seconds. By 0:30 seconds, the shooting is over and Childress is down.
So best case scenario, Waller had 4 seconds to see whether the guy exiting the SUV and coming around the corner of the parked car had a weapon in his hands. Just playing devil's advocate here; but if the guy has already threatened you in the past, and has now chased you through a stop sign up to the doors of a police station, and has exited his vehicle and coming at you even after you've pointed a gun at him - how much time do you want to spend on whether he has a visible weapon?
If nothing else, the video is a good example of how fast these things happen. They also show why working out some general strategies BEFORE you find yourself in trouble is so effective.
Isk said:Second, it feels like forever before someone finally gets around to providing medical treatment to the guy that was shot.
According to one of the reports, one of the shots was in the side of the head. So that may have played a role in the delay until he got medical treatment.
Last edited:
Sgt Pepper
New member
In watching the video, two things occur to me:
(1) It does not appear to me that the officers were overly aggressive in apprehending the suspect. They have absolutely NO IDEA what has transpired or what he is about other than they think he shot someone. If you are the police, do you have any other choice but to treat every shooter with equal force, hands up or not? However, it apparently takes at least SIX officers to get this guy. Four rush in after the guy is already face down, handcuffed, and does not appear to really be resisting or a threat.
(2) Meanwhile, the officers and other personnel do absolutely everything BUT help the guy who is bleeding out in the parking lot. They run up and down the street, they look inside the vehicles, they console the girlfriend, they chase after the white car, etc., but NEVER attend to the guy. While there are at least SIX officers on the "bad guy," there are ZERO officers with the dying "good guy." Now that is frightening.
(1) It does not appear to me that the officers were overly aggressive in apprehending the suspect. They have absolutely NO IDEA what has transpired or what he is about other than they think he shot someone. If you are the police, do you have any other choice but to treat every shooter with equal force, hands up or not? However, it apparently takes at least SIX officers to get this guy. Four rush in after the guy is already face down, handcuffed, and does not appear to really be resisting or a threat.
(2) Meanwhile, the officers and other personnel do absolutely everything BUT help the guy who is bleeding out in the parking lot. They run up and down the street, they look inside the vehicles, they console the girlfriend, they chase after the white car, etc., but NEVER attend to the guy. While there are at least SIX officers on the "bad guy," there are ZERO officers with the dying "good guy." Now that is frightening.
Double Naught Spy
New member
(2) Meanwhile, the officers and other personnel do absolutely everything BUT help the guy who is bleeding out in the parking lot. They run up and down the street, they look inside the vehicles, they console the girlfriend, they chase after the white car, etc., but NEVER attend to the guy. While there are at least SIX officers on the "bad guy," there are ZERO officers with the dying "good guy." Now that is frightening.
I am not sure what it is that you expected the officers to be doing for Childress. He got visually assessed multiple times it looks like and had his pulse checked. More than likely, not a single officer on scene had the slightest idea what they should be doing for a person that is headshot. It does not appear from the video that Childress was bleeding out (no pooling blood) and so there wasn't reason to be trying to staunch the flow of blood leaving the body.
What would you have done?
I think the most important lesson to be learned here is that "avoidance" means more than just staying out of bad neighborhoods. Bad relationship choices can lead to bad situations. It's nice to say that women aren't possessions, but that doesn't change the fact that fooling with a woman who is in relationship with somebody else is likely to lead to conflict.
From the video alone it could have went either way. A hand picked jury could have been swayed for sure. Not enough info for any of us to make a judgement. There must have been a history of violence and threats as well as the moments of chase before the video brought to light in the trial. Just from that video alone and no testimony would be hard for me to justify the shoot. Shooter had a good lawyer.
Deaf Smith
New member
(
Sgt, the Cops want to make sure in the reports they 'assisted' in an arrest and thus get brownie points. That is why it takes six of 'em. And I am quite serious. They have another arrest to their record.
No brownie points I suspect for helping him (but a chance of getting AIDs from the blood, so why risk it?) And I love the way they run around with their guns (literally), two handed grips, just like the TV shows.
Deaf
1) It does not appear to me that the officers were overly aggressive in apprehending the suspect. They have absolutely NO IDEA what has transpired or what he is about other than they think he shot someone. If you are the police, do you have any other choice but to treat every shooter with equal force, hands up or not? However, it apparently takes at least SIX officers to get this guy. Four rush in after the guy is already face down, handcuffed, and does not appear to really be resisting or a threat.
Sgt, the Cops want to make sure in the reports they 'assisted' in an arrest and thus get brownie points. That is why it takes six of 'em. And I am quite serious. They have another arrest to their record.
(2) Meanwhile, the officers and other personnel do absolutely everything BUT help the guy who is bleeding out in the parking lot. They run up and down the street, they look inside the vehicles, they console the girlfriend, they chase after the white car, etc., but NEVER attend to the guy. While there are at least SIX officers on the "bad guy," there are ZERO officers with the dying "good guy." Now that is frightening.
No brownie points I suspect for helping him (but a chance of getting AIDs from the blood, so why risk it?) And I love the way they run around with their guns (literally), two handed grips, just like the TV shows.
Deaf
One his personal choices were bad in ethics of a relationship. But i will say the aggressive nature of the charging the defender and him almost striking his car in the process calls for self defense. The arrest in no way was police brutality or over use of force. If a man rushed me and i cant id a weapon or not i would draw a weapon. He rushed him like an idiot and scared him. Open shut case of someone being a moron.
Is a police station a no firearms zone ? I wonder if it was expected that Waller would be unarmed by Childress. The guy had to be doing some heavy thinking as he chased Waller through town. He must have known Waller carried a gun (via the woman in center stage in this scenario). I think Waller must have had his gun in his hand when he got out of his car, as the shooting took place very quickly. In California one is expected to take a beatdown before resorting to lethal force.
If Childress was headshot (and from the video it looks like the last shot was, by the way he went down), a team of Boston surgeons probably couldn't have helped him, much less the average LEO.
Not being willing to shoot an unarmed man is a foolish thought... How do you know he's unarmed unless he is naked? You take a big risk engaging in any kind of fight besides a gunfight while carrying a pistol. If it is taken then it can be turned on you or any number of innocent bystanders. Not really a smart risk to take.
Get your high school ideas of being a tough guy out of your head or take off the damn gun.
Not being willing to shoot an unarmed man is a foolish thought... How do you know he's unarmed unless he is naked? You take a big risk engaging in any kind of fight besides a gunfight while carrying a pistol. If it is taken then it can be turned on you or any number of innocent bystanders. Not really a smart risk to take.
Get your high school ideas of being a tough guy out of your head or take off the damn gun.
KWalk313000
Inactive
I agree with Ben Towe in the post above. In a situation like this, although ill advised in the first place to be in this situation, with circumstances considered the shooting was appropriate to me if he feared for his life which he did and then proved in court.
I believe someone said he had no right to shoot him unarmed. He did it, was charged with murder, and was acquitted on the grounds of self defense, so he did have some right to shoot here obviously.
I've never been in a fight since I've started carrying and don't plan on every being in one, I'll either run away deescalate as much as I can or do what I need to defend myself.
As to the parties involved, both these guys were asking for trouble based on all the info and although the shooter was acquitted in this case it does not seem like he should be carrying a gun if he's introducing himself into situations like this. Ain't nothing like a women to get a man acting crazy. Emotions and guns don't mix. Leave 'em at home when you strap on and walk out the door.
I believe someone said he had no right to shoot him unarmed. He did it, was charged with murder, and was acquitted on the grounds of self defense, so he did have some right to shoot here obviously.
I've never been in a fight since I've started carrying and don't plan on every being in one, I'll either run away deescalate as much as I can or do what I need to defend myself.
As to the parties involved, both these guys were asking for trouble based on all the info and although the shooter was acquitted in this case it does not seem like he should be carrying a gun if he's introducing himself into situations like this. Ain't nothing like a women to get a man acting crazy. Emotions and guns don't mix. Leave 'em at home when you strap on and walk out the door.
Double Naught Spy
New member
The guy had to be doing some heavy thinking as he chased Waller through town. He must have known Waller carried a gun (via the woman in center stage in this scenario).
Not necessarily. I dated my wife for 4 years and it was several months into our marriage before she knew of my firearms.
I think Waller must have had his gun in his hand when he got out of his car, as the shooting took place very quickly.
I certainly would be inclined be inclined to have my gun ready, if not in my hand, if some maniac is chasing me with his vehicle.
Can't see the video at work, but 2 thoughts based on the articles and comments:
-should've been on the phone with 911 as soon as he realized he was being pursued
-I probably would've stayed in the car to keep castle doctrine coverage. Under NC law if he was unarmed, you'd probably be facing the same murder charges unless you were under castle doctrine.
-should've been on the phone with 911 as soon as he realized he was being pursued
-I probably would've stayed in the car to keep castle doctrine coverage. Under NC law if he was unarmed, you'd probably be facing the same murder charges unless you were under castle doctrine.
Spats McGee
Administrator
Just in case anyone wants to order a transcript of the trial, the case was tried in the Faulkner County, Arkansas, Circuit Court, Third Division, the Honorable Charles Clawson, Jr., presiding. It was docket number CR-2010-827. The Arkansas Judicial Directory, through which you can track down the court reporter's contact information, can be downloaded here: https://courts.arkansas.gov/ by opening up the "Publications" menu on the left side.
Disclaimer: I have no financial interest in any fees charged for the preparation of the afore-mentioned transcript.
Disclaimer: I have no financial interest in any fees charged for the preparation of the afore-mentioned transcript.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
-I probably would've stayed in the car to keep castle doctrine coverage.
That brings up a good point. In many states, Castle Doctrine has been extended to people's personal vehicles. This gives you greater legal protection if you stay in the vehicle and the vehicle itself can offer some protection from contact weapons like hammers/knives/fists. The flip side of this is that if your attacker has a firearm and does actually intend to kill you, staying in the car seriously limits your mobility and ability to fight back. Had Childress jumped out of the SUV with a gun and Waller was still sitting in his locked car, he would have been in a tight spot.
And the flip side of extending Castle Doctrine to vehicles is we all need to understand the danger in approaching someone's vehicle and trying to forcibly enter it (or do something that might be perceived that way like beat on the doors or windows) in those states where Castle Doctrine extends to vehicles. An acquaintance was telling me of a "road rage" incident where he was repeatedly endangered by a drunk. At a red light, he got out of his car, walked to the other's car and opened the drunk's door to find a pistol pointing at him. The drunk had definitely earned some personal counseling; but had the drunk shot my acquaintance, he might well have been justified under Castle Doctrine.
According to what was seen in the video the shooting was justified self-defense. What happened prior to that is immaterial really in the eyes of the court. Keep in mind that he'd been charged with murder and claimed self defense in regards to the act of killing Childress. From what can be seen its self defense regardless of how immoral or wrong the events that lead up to this might have been.
To all of you who are saying you wouldn't have shot because he was unarmed... how do you know he was unarmed? He could have had a knife tucked behind his shirt... and I know of plenty of guys who could kill you without a weapon. I'll be frank and say that if it was one of them and you'd messed with their wife you'd better gun them down if they were rushing you like that. If not it'd be you dead on the ground and him being arrested for murder - and he wouldn't need a weapon for that.
Forget all the movie and macho stuff about not shooting someone who seemed unarmed. If you perceive your life or physical safety in actual danger the do what you carry for - draw and defend yourself. There's a quote I've read around here often - "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6." This is all too true. If you're not prepared to draw and shoot to defend yourself or you loved ones just because you think your attacker is unarmed then sell your EDC weapon and learn to fight like Jet Li.
To all of you who are saying you wouldn't have shot because he was unarmed... how do you know he was unarmed? He could have had a knife tucked behind his shirt... and I know of plenty of guys who could kill you without a weapon. I'll be frank and say that if it was one of them and you'd messed with their wife you'd better gun them down if they were rushing you like that. If not it'd be you dead on the ground and him being arrested for murder - and he wouldn't need a weapon for that.
Forget all the movie and macho stuff about not shooting someone who seemed unarmed. If you perceive your life or physical safety in actual danger the do what you carry for - draw and defend yourself. There's a quote I've read around here often - "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6." This is all too true. If you're not prepared to draw and shoot to defend yourself or you loved ones just because you think your attacker is unarmed then sell your EDC weapon and learn to fight like Jet Li.
Spats McGee
Administrator
Arkansas and the Castle Doctrine
If Castle Doctrine is going to be debated, I'll set out what Arkansas has on the books.
First, Ark. Code Ann. 5-2-607: Use of deadly physical force in defense of a person
Second, Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-620. Defense, person or property
If Castle Doctrine is going to be debated, I'll set out what Arkansas has on the books.
First, Ark. Code Ann. 5-2-607: Use of deadly physical force in defense of a person
Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-607 (West)(a) A person is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if the person reasonably believes that the other person is:
(1) Committing or about to commit a felony involving force or violence;
(2) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force; or
(3) Imminently endangering the person's life or imminently about to victimize the person as described in § 9-15-103 from the continuation of a pattern of domestic abuse.
(b) A person may not use deadly physical force in self-defense if the person knows that he or she can avoid the necessity of using deadly physical force with complete safety:
(1)(A) By retreating.
(B) However, a person is not required to retreat if the person is:
(i) In the person's dwelling or on the curtilage surrounding the person's dwelling and was not the original aggressor; or
(ii) A law enforcement officer or a person assisting at the direction of a law enforcement officer; or
(2) By surrendering possession of property to a person claiming a lawful right to possession of the property.
(c) As used in this section: (1) “Curtilage” means the land adjoining a dwelling that is convenient for residential purposes and habitually used for residential purposes, but not necessarily enclosed, and includes an outbuilding that is directly and intimately connected with the dwelling and in close proximity to the dwelling; and
(2) “Domestic abuse” means:
(A) Physical harm, bodily injury, assault, or the infliction of fear of imminent physical harm, bodily injury, or assault between family or household members; or
(B) Any sexual conduct between family or household members, whether minors or adults, that constitutes a crime under the laws of this state.
Second, Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-620. Defense, person or property
Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-620 (West)(a) The right of an individual to defend himself or herself and the life of a person or property in the individual's home against harm, injury, or loss by a person unlawfully entering or attempting to enter or intrude into the home is reaffirmed as a fundamental right to be preserved and promoted as a public policy in this state.
(b) There is a legal presumption that any force or means used to accomplish a purpose described in subsection (a) of this section was exercised in a lawful and necessary manner, unless the presumption is overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
(c) The public policy stated in subsection (a) of this section shall be strictly complied with by the court and an appropriate instruction of this public policy shall be given to a jury sitting in trial of criminal charges brought in connection with this public policy.
To all of you who are saying you wouldn't have shot because he was unarmed... how do you know he was unarmed? He could have had a knife tucked behind his shirt... and I know of plenty of guys who could kill you without a weapon. I'll be frank and say that if it was one of them and you'd messed with their wife you'd better gun them down if they were rushing you like that. If not it'd be you dead on the ground and him being arrested for murder - and he wouldn't need a weapon for that.
Totally depends on your state laws. I dont know about laws where you live or where this took place, but in NC you do NOT have the right to respond to a simple assault with deadly force. If you have the reasonable belief that the guy is going to kill you or do severe harm even though he's unarmed, or if you're covered by something like castle doctrine, things are different.