Man Claims Self-Defense, Charged With Murder

Icedog, what if'ing the situation does not help. What if I had a thermal nuclear bomb in my car. What if he shot him in the Hospital? Is it ok to go to a movie in a crowded firehouse?

Tailgator, precisely, we do not know what led up to the confrontation.

What if he had this or that, it changes the facts as we know them and is irrelevant. I am not saying the jury was wrong. I am saying that the shooter was rightfully arrested and charged with murder. If his attorney was able to interject reasonable doubt and get him acquitted, great, thats his job.

If you guys feel justified shooting someone in this situation, go for it.

As I have posted before, I spent a career in Law Enforcement. I have been shot at, stabbed, spit on, fought with you name it, when I have used force it has been appropriate to the situation. In MY OPINION shooting him was NOT an appropriate response. After being involved in thousands of bad situations over 3 decades, I feel that I have learned a thing or two and feel pretty comfortable calling a spade a spade. It is a rare thing indeed that you get to watch a shooting on video like that. I know you tube is full of them, but that just scratches the surface.

Anger- someone is tailgating you, following you, driving aggressively, you go to the police department with him following you, you are scared, angry, or what? Oh wait, the guy is following you because you are banging the mother of his children and you will not stay away from her after being told to do so. So the stalker shoots the guy who is apparently trying to get the stalker to leave his woman alone.

You can what if this and every scenario to death, so some of do not agree, cool. That is why we have the judicial system we do. He received a fair trial and was acquitted.
 
Last edited:
IMO, it's important to recognize the distinction between "right vs. wrong" and "legal vs. illegal." Perhaps the two analyses should be the same, but they are not.

I'd say that there was plenty of stupid to go around in this situation. Thing 1 shouldn't have been playing patty-fingers with Thing 2's girl. Thing 2 shouldn't have been chasing Thing 1 around town, trying to give him the whoopin' (that's the technical term) that 2 thought 1 so richly deserved.

Still, whether the killing was right, wrong, or indifferent, the jury decided that 2 was entitled to use deadly force to defend himself. Thing 2's actions were legal, regardless of whether we think they were right or wrong.
 
Nanuk, that's exactly my point. The jury ruled on the law. Not
Lets just say this was a road rage incident taken too far.
Click to expand...
. Because it wasn't. The jury took all the facts and evidence and ruled on the law. Not should they have duked it out. Not that the attacker wasn't armed. And not Thing 1 (thanks Spats McGee :D) taking a whoopin that he might have deserved.
 
I want the name of the defense attorney, to solicit him for the Network. He obviously understands self-defense law, and has successfully defended one case!
 
Marty Hayes said:
I want the name of the defense attorney, to solicit him for the Network. He obviously understands self-defense law, and has successfully defended one case!
Click to expand...
The defense attorneys were (in no particular order):
1) Bill Luppen, of Little Rock, AR; and
2) Frank Shaw, of Conway, AR.
 
Icedog88: 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
Click to expand...

Your right that the law in Arkansas does not require your attacker to be as well armed as you might be. The law probably also requires that you did nothing to provoke the incident. This would have also been a justified shooting in Texas. One is not simply required to take a whooping, and maybe have his weapons taken away from him before defending himself.
But getting involved in a love triangle is a good way to get killed sooner or
later. Were I on that jury I would have voted not guilty as well, because
one has to render the decision according to the law. There does seem to be a lot of people who believe that you cannot shoot an unarmed person assaulting you. That is not the case in many southern states. I will bet his
legal expenses though still run into thosands of dollars.
 
But getting involved in a love triangle is a good way to get killed
Click to expand...

Or a parallelogram. Or playing your music too loud. Or anything else in this day and age it seems like. Too bad people in this situation had to find this out the hard way.

I will bet his
legal expenses though still run into thosands of dollars.
Click to expand...

Not fair really, but in the long run, probably the best money he ever had to spend.
 
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.
Click to expand...

No, he shot and killed a man in self defense after the man vehicularly chased him down and then rushed him as he exited his own vehicle. He feared for his life. That there was an issue involving a female does nothing to change the justification for self defense.

The only person committing a criminal act here was the aggressor who is now deceased. The aggressor/deceased had no legal right to attack the shooter. Being mad about being cuckhold do not get one legal right to attack another person.
 
After watching the video several times and reading through this thread, my conclusion is that there was a fine line a jury had to negotiate. In the end, justice was weighed and served. Moreover, there are a lot of lessons to be gleaned from this incident for all of us.

(non sequitur) I hope the shooter wised up and left that woman...she's trouble.
 
Murder to me....

Looks to me like the shooter was a coward afraid to take a beating. The worst person to fight is a coward as they will shoot you to avoid taking a beating. This looks like murder to me. If the other guy had a gun or a knife ok shoot him.
 
gvw3 said:
Looks to me like the shooter was a coward afraid to take a beating. The worst person to fight is a coward as they will shoot you to avoid taking a beating. This looks like murder to me...
Click to expand...
However, it doesn't matter how it looks to you. Mr. Waller was acquitted by a jury. The jury heard all the evidence and decided (1) that the prosecutor was unable to prove Mr. Waller committed murder; and (2) that Mr. Waller was justified in using lethal force.
 
fiddletown It did matter what I think. We had the same situation in my family. My nephew was carrying his gun due to the same type of situation. His girl friend had an x that had confronted him. I talked him out of carrying the gun as it is not legal in the state of IL

They did end up in a fight but both walked away. My nephew ended up married to the girl. The father of her 1st child is still alive and they all get along fine now. They both go fishing together with all there kids.

Don't misunderstand me. If some one comes at you with a gun, knife or any other weapon I think you are justified in shooting them. If some one is kicking down the door to your home I think you can shoot 1st and ask questions latter.
 
gvw3- you're willing to subject yourself to possible great bodily harm, permanent disfigurement or death from an attacker before you're willing to shoot to defend yourself?

Are you sure about that?

Talking someone out of illegally carrying a gun has no relevance to this situation. Nor does the fact that all parties involved in that situation are on friendly terms now.
 
fiddletown It did matter what I think.
Click to expand...

As it relates to Mr. Maller's case, it doesn't.

The days of fights adhering to some sort of code is long gone. "The Outsiders", "West Side Story" and movies of that ilk, don't happen. :rolleyes:
 
Every situation is different. In this case, a judge and jury reviewed the evidence and made the call. Having said that, I can certainly see why it is debatable. In the video it appears that the shooter's car is not really blocked in, thus leaving him an opportunity to pull away. It also seems the shooter might have been able to dial 911, explain the situation and that he was outside the police station with the maniac in pursuit.
 
gvw3 said:
fiddletown It did matter what I think. We had the same situation in my family. My nephew was carrying his gun due to the same type of situation. His girl friend had an x that had confronted him. I talked him out of carrying the gun as it is not legal in the state of IL...
Click to expand...
That has nothing whatsoever to do with Mr. Waller or anything being discussed in this thread.
 
matthew261 said:
Every situation is different. In this case, a judge and jury reviewed the evidence and made the call. Having said that, I can certainly see why it is debatable. In the video it appears that the shooter's car is not really blocked in, thus leaving him an opportunity to pull away. It also seems the shooter might have been able to dial 911, explain the situation and that he was outside the police station with the maniac in pursuit.
Click to expand...
Possibly, but only if he had a cell phone. Given that just about everyone has one, it seems likely that Waller did, too. We simply don't know that he had a cell phone.

I would submit that he may have pulled into the police station because he hoped he'd be safe there. If that's the case, that would indicate to me that his fear of death or bodily harm began well before he arrived at the CPD. Speculation, but not entirely unreasonable, I don't think.

gvw3 said:
. . . . If the other guy had a gun or a knife ok shoot him.
Click to expand...
Arkansas law doesn't require anyone to confirm that their attacker has a weapon before defending themselves.
 
I would have my gun drawn and stayed in the car. There is a door and a window that protects you from someone smashing you/stabbing you. He could have fired through that if needed be.


Lets not forget this was over a relationship... Drama.. Should never involve in that type of drama.
 
"Arkansas law doesn't require anyone to confirm that their attacker has a weapon before defending themselves."

That's an important factor in the judgement
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top