Man Claims Self-Defense, Charged With Murder

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.
Click to expand...

Right, what you think in regard to the case doesn't matter.

Oh I get it. The other guy was about to do great bodily harm to the intended victim but because he was smarter than the attacker and had a gun for protection, you are saying he is a coward.

Many people carry a gun so as to protect themselves from significant assaults. That makes them cowards?

Fight smarter, not harder, if you can't avoid the fight.

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.
Click to expand...

If it was legal for your nephew to carry a gun, would you have been so quick to talking him out of carrying protection so that he could get a proper beating to show he isn't a coward?

Just because your nephew got a beating doesn't mean that other people should get a beating. You are naive to think that such confrontations are only limited to simple beatings. It isn't exactly uncommon for jilted lovers to deliver life changing injuries or even to commit murder.

Your situation isn't anything like the case being discussed except for the fact that in both, you weren't the one who was apt to get harmed.
 
After reviewing the video there are some things I noticed.

1. the shooter did everything we talk about in a variety of threads.
a.He attempted to avoid the confrontation by driving away from his pursurer.
b. He went to a safe place. The Police Station.
c. His line of retreat was blocked.


2. He faced multiple attackers.

a. The Video shows two figures charging his car. In my reading I did not see any comments on the second figure which charged the shooter.
b. The second attacker fled the scene.

3. Given the fact that the shooter had fled from his attackers and he faced multiple attackers. There was a clear disparity of force.

This a good shoot.
 
There was no second attacker in the video. Maybe the girlfriend trying to stop him. I am still having trouble with the fact that Waller was charged with murder. Regardless of preexisting circumstances it was a clear cut case of self defense.

The attacker saw that he was armed, and continued to charge at him. I would have shot him too. Not only was he charging to assualt a man in front of the police station. He saw the gun and charged anyway. Unfortunately he did not live to learn a lesson.
 
I am still having trouble with the fact that Waller was charged with murder. Regardless of preexisting circumstances it was a clear cut case of self defense.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone was arguing that it wasn't a case of self defense. The issue at hand was whether the use of lethal force was warranted/justified in this case of self defense. Was it reasonable that the shooter felt that his life was at risk for significant bodily injury or death such that his use of lethal force would be justified.
 
GaryH said:
If 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?
Click to expand...
In most states, it is acceptable (i.e. legal) any time the defendant believes he or she is in immediate danger of death or serous bodily injury from an assailant. The law does not require you to suck it up and take an ass-whuppin' "like a man."

In this case, I don't think the defendant was guilty of anything (other than maybe sleeping with the wrong woman). Even adulterers have a Constitutional right to self defense.

GlockNLoaded32 said:
still even though 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
Click to expand...
Actually, yes it does. "Unarmed" does not equal "defenseless." Childress chose to pursue Waller and initiate an attack. Waller had every right to defend himself.

Nanuk said:
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.
Click to expand...
But a charge of murder requires premeditation. Absent premeditation, it isn't murder. Murder means the killer set out with the intention of taking the other person's life. In this case, the shooter was trying to escape from the decedent. The shooter was attempting to "retreat" to the perceived safety of a POLICE STATION and the decedent pursued him there and initiated an assault ... RIGHT IN FRONT OF A POLICE STATION.

No way was it murder.
 
Last edited:
Here is the deal. ANYTIME an armed man uses a gun against an unarmed man, he is very likely to be charged with a crime. Courts do not universally recognize the right to shoot unarmed people. It is only at trial where the armed man gets to explain to the jury why he shot the unarmed man. That is why there was a trial, and apparently the jury decided that the armed man was justified in the shooting. Add in the history of the parties involved, I would have been extremely surprised if he hadn't been charged.

As far as not taking a beating, I will not take a beating either. The level of force I use to prevent that beating depends on the circumstances of the event.
 
AquillaBlanca: But a charge of murder requires premeditation. Absent premeditation, it isn't murder. Murder means the killer set out with the intention of taking the other person's life. In this case, the shooter was trying to escape from the decedent. The shooter was attempting to "retreat" to the perceived safety of a POLICE STATION and the decedent pursued him there and initiated an assault ... RIGHT IN FRONT OF A POLICE STATION.

No way was it murder
Click to expand...
.

I certainly agree with your view that it was not murder. I think that the fact that this was right in front of a police station strongly convinced the jury that
the defendant was certainly in fear for his life. Any time someone allows an unarmed assailant to assault them physically they very likely may get shot with their own gun. If one is not safe when arriving at a police station where else could they possibly run to?
 
It's clearly not murder, but the fact remains that a man is dead as
the result of a long running "scumbag soap-opera" that could have been
avoided by any one of the parties involved simply "walking away". It's
too bad that Waller and the woman can't both be held partially responsible
for the incident.
 
Just for the record:
"Murder" does not require premeditation.
First Degree murder requires premeditation.
Second and third degree murder do not require any premeditation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top