Man Claims Self-Defense, Charged With Murder

Let's see - the guy chased him down to the police station. Nearly slammed his SUV into his vehicle and blocked off exit route. Then he leaves his vehicle and rushes the shooter.

Frankly if I were in his situation I'd be fearing for my life or at very least fearing serious bodily injury. That warrants drawing and shooting. Anything less and you're risking your life on a chance he won't pummel you to death or cause serious brain injury and make you a vegetable for the rest of your life.
 
Does Arkansas have any laws pertaining to stand your ground? If so, castle doctrine would be a moot point.

As far as the don't mess with a woman who is in a relationship. 3 people acted like fools. The man messing with a woman in an obviously committed relationship, the woman, messing around outside of her very committed relationship, and the man who stayed with the woman who messed around outside of their very committed relationship and went looking for a fight to preserve her honor (or his own) :rolleyes:

A man who has a beef with me chases me through town, stops his car a few feet from mine and charges me obviously intends to do great bodily harm. If my gun was holstered when he was pulling up, it isn't when he leaps out.
 
Typically a "Stand Your Ground" law removes the duty to retreat in a public place. It appears Arkansas still requires you to retreat in a public place if you can do so safely. It also looks like Arkansas Castle Doctrine only extends to the home, so in this case Waller would not gain any extra legal advantage by staying in his car.

I might have to order that transcript now so I can see how Waller's lawyer handled the argument for duty to retreat.
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
Typically a "Stand Your Ground" law removes the duty to retreat in a public place. It appears Arkansas still requires you to retreat in a public place if you can do so safely. It also looks like Arkansas Castle Doctrine only extends to the home, so in this case Waller would not gain any extra legal advantage by staying in his car.
Click to expand...
Yes, but take a close look at § 5-2-607:

(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 . . . .

(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: . . . .[edited by Spats McGee for brevity]
Click to expand...

Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-607 (West)(emphasis supplied by Spats)

BR, your analysis is just a little off.
Bartholomew Roberts said:
It appears Arkansas still requires you to retreat in a public place if you can do so safely.
Click to expand...
Not quite. Arkansas law requires you to retreat if: (a) you're in a public place; and (b) you know (c) that you can avoid the necessity of using deadly physical force with (d) complete safety. Not, "I think I'll have complete safety over there," or "I know I'll be safer over there," but "I know that I can avoid deadly force in complete safety by retreating."

I would agree that the car does not afford him any extra legal protection in Arkansas, but I'm not convinced that he was under a duty to retreat, either.
 
Yes, I think you are right. I am so used to seeing the "with safety" qualifier in duty-to-retreat statutes that I kind of skimmed over that and didn't appreciate the emphasis on "complete safety."

Depending how the courts read that, that is a very fine dstinction from no duty to retreat at all since it would be rare you could ever retreat in "complete" safety.
 
I think "with safety" is a pretty standard wording, but it looks like this has been our law since 1975. I'm digging around to see how it's been handled by our Supreme Court. I'll get some good quotes up in just a little bit, so that you can see how the contours of our duty to retreat have been drawn.
 
You really never know who you are dealing with. Not sure what the man in the SUVs plan was, but he paid the ultimate price for his action. In the end the lesson is "think" before you act. It looks like the shooter clearly "reacted" to a threat.
 
Guy 'has relations' with another guys girl then kills the guy and people complain how the police treat him.

:rolleyes:X 478 gajillion.
 
Regardless of the shooters advances towards the shootee's girlfriend. The shootee followed like a stalker, then rushed him. I do not blame the man for defending himself with force. The man that was shot learned a lesson to die for. Not everyone gets to live to learn the lesson.
 
Guy 'has relations' with another guys girl then kills the guy and people complain how the police treat him.

X 478 gajillion.
Click to expand...

Whether or not the guy had relations with another person's girlfriend isn't relevant to the police's treatment of him after a self defense shooting where he has been acquitted. He was justified in using lethal force to defend himself against his aggressor. Like it or not, he was the intended victim in the confrontation.
 
I see no evidence that the deceased was armed. The shooter is a weasel whom bad things were catching up to. The woman was the catalyst, and twisted the emotions of these two men. I would hazard a guess that neither one of them was being thoughtful or logical. All parties were wrong, who was more wrong? I say the shooter was more wrong by introducing deadly force into a domestic situation.
 
Nanuk said:
I see no evidence that the deceased was armed. The shooter is a weasel whom bad things were catching up to. The woman was the catalyst, and twisted the emotions of these two men. I would hazard a guess that neither one of them was being thoughtful or logical. All parties were wrong, who was more wrong? I say the shooter was more wrong by introducing deadly force into a domestic situation.
Click to expand...

Weasels may not be afforded the right by law to defend themselves from attack, but weasel-like humans do have that right.
 
GaryH said:
...f the dude didn't display a weapon then the killer murdered someone because he was afraid of an ass whooping. I didn't see or hear all of the evidence, but when is it acceptable to gun someone down on a city street? To me it looked like a coward committed murder...
Click to expand...
GlockedNLoded32 said:
...Childress boxed Waller in and approached in a threatening manner he was still unarmed...that doesn't give Waller the right to kill a defenseless man that just proves hes a coward...
Click to expand...
Merad said:
...Under NC law if he was unarmed, you'd probably be facing the same murder charges unless you were under castle doctrine...
Click to expand...
Nanuk said:
...The shooter is a weasel whom bad things were catching up to...
Click to expand...
BUT --

In any case, Mr.Waller was charged with murder but the jury acquitted him. So the jury, who heard all the evidence, from both sides, apparently concluded that Mr. Waller's use of lethal force was legally justified under the circumstances.
 
I see some people still love to play the blame the victim game. The other man chased and pusued him. Then got out to attack him.

I do not care what you say the motivator for a guy to chase someone then rush out of a vehicle and then assaualt him are. If you are dumb enough when angry to do this. I have no pitty for you when ther other guy shoots you. If I were on the jury I can say that I would have asked why charges had even been filed.
 
I say the shooter was more wrong by introducing deadly force into a domestic situation.
Click to expand...

More wrong? Not illegally so and that is what the jury had to decide on.

I am not sure of your justification of it not being right because it was a domestic situations. People are often killed in "domestic situations." Cops often suffer the worst harm in "domestic situations."

When you are being illegally chased down and then rushed as the shooter was, you certainly may be in a position to reasonably fear for his life. It does not matter what the impetus may have been. At the point of the shooting, the shooter was the victim who was being attacked. That the attacker acted to solidify the affection of a woman isn't legal grounds for making the attack. He was wrong, made a very stupid choice, and died in front of his kids.
 
I think some people are taking my statement the wrong way.

I am not defending anyone, I am saying they are both stupid, a woman wittingly or not manipulated the situation and somebody died.

We only saw a small snippet of film and no evidence one way or the other besides the video itself. I was not on the scene, nor the jury, nor am I passing judgement. It is however suspicious as H$#@ when one part of a love triangle kills another part of the love triangle.

Lets just say this was a road rage incident taken too far. Did anyone make contact with anyone else's vehicle in any manner? Following someone as the deceased did was really stupid, stopping like he did was really stupid, getting out to confront the other driver was really stupid.

Double Naught, I say it was not right because an angry armed man killed and angry unarmed man over a relationship. Maybe where you live its ok to kill your squeeze's boyfriend. I don't know what precipitated this event, all I can do is comment on the information I have available.
 
i had a friend whose brakes gave out on a hill and he hit a squad car at the intersection. The police came out of their car with guns pointing and had the terified guy spread eagle on the ground in no time.

The reasonable person test will be debated forever, but cutting somebody off with a vehicle and them coming at him aggressively would ``put the victum in reasonable fear for his life``. Bang.

Sad deal, but cars are deadly weapons, too.
 
a woman wittingly or not manipulated the situation and somebody died.
Click to expand...

Her boyfriend she was living with allowed himself to be "manipulated".

Lets just say this was a road rage incident taken too far. Did anyone make contact with anyone else's vehicle in any manner?
Click to expand...

That didn't matter. Isolated, a man parks at the police station, gets out of his car with his back to it, another car speeds toward him, stops short, driver charges him allowing no avenue to retreat. This man in the car was going to try to beat him up in front of the police station! Not in the right frame of mind IMO. Whether or not we saw what led up to the shooting on tape is immaterial. The jury heard the past history. Coupled with the shooting on tape, the jury made the right verdict. The law as written in Arkansas doesn't require your attacker to be as well armed as you might be. Or armed period. What if the attacker (because that's what the man who charged was), picked up a brick during the tussle were he not shot? Did he have a pocket knife that he could have pulled out? Where do you draw the line for a "fair fight"? The shooter had a .45. If the attacker had a .22, is it more fair? Those two calibers aren't equal. Justified shooting.
 
I say it was not right because an angry armed man killed an angry unarmed man over a relationship.
Click to expand...
(Emphasis added.)

This sentence makes it sound like the shooter went and found his competitor and shot him so he could have the woman to himself. That is a mis-statement of the situation that appears in the video. I don't see evidence that the shooter acted in anger; nor do we have any reason to think that he shot the deceased "over of a relationship," which I take the writer to mean out of jealousy or possessiveness. The deceased was visibly angry, aggressive, and taking overtly threatening action against the shooter. What went on before was of questionable moral fiber, but it is only the back story in an incident in which a person was, according to a jury, in legitimate fear of death or serious injury and defended himself against the immediate actions of an assailant.

It certainly is good advice to keep oneself out of situations like this, and for reason that go much deeper than the prospect of gunplay. But being a jerk does not give the rest of the world the right to dispense vigilante justice; hence the right of jerks to defend themselves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top