one too many

Y

yourang?

New member
here is a case where an armed robber grapples with a man
and loses his gun....and gets shot multiple times

http://www.cnycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=487787

this is a good example that even the regular non-carrying citizen
needs to know the laws on use of force...and excessive use of force...

he stopped the threat, which is okay

it was the bullet to the head, when he was down, that got him the
murder charge, in what was at first thought to be a good self defense
shoot

might it have been the heat of the moment that got him to go too far?

or should a even a reasonable non carrying person know that the one
to the back of the head was a big no no?

for sure the adrenaline is surging, but this shows that even non gunners
need to know the laws when it comes to self defense


edit: one bullet to the BACK of his head......
 
not sure how long this thread will last (tactics and training?), but i agree that even average citizens need to know the rules/laws on excessive use of force.

if someone did, in fact, try to harm me (and/or my family), i think being upset would be an understatement. i couldn't imagine how irate i would be. although i would like to believe that i wouldn't dump an extra round into the back of the guy's head, i don't think i would hesitate to give him a couple rib kicks just for good measure.

tough situation, and i really feel bad for the guy who appears to have legally defended himself (and a family member) PRIOR to making the poor decision to "put a lil extra hot sauce" on the bad guy
 
If that attorney gets him off, I know who I'm hiring if I'm ever involved in a shooting. He shoulda rolled the BG over.
 
Tough one...

It's easy for some bureaucrats to armchair quarterback what this guy did. Nice to be judged by some fool who wasn't there fighting for HIS life.

Proving that the attacker was incapacitated when the head shot was made seems a big stretch to me. I feel bad for the victim having to fight this.
 
Man with his wife gets accosted by an individual with a gun. He is fighting for his life, was lucky enough or good enough that he got the gun and shot the bad guy. I don't care how many times he shot him or where. He had no way of knowing how bad that man was hurt or if he had another weapon on him or if he was capable of getting up and resuming the fight. Shoot till the threat is no longer a threat. He was fighting for his wife not just himself.

DA is a politician seeking glory for prosecuting a man who used a gun in the hopes of an easy conviction to pad his record. DA wasn't there. I wasn't there, you weren't there. I will not second guess the shooting. He survived, that is what counts. Boogerman is off the street...permanently. No down side.
 
Last edited:
Nice to be judged by some fool who wasn't there fighting for HIS life.
Click to expand...
Well, too bad, but this is our legal system, and it's usually pretty good. In some countries, he would be taken out and summarily shot or jailed for an indeterminate time. Watch Midnight Express sometime.

Grump, you're 100% correct - none of us were there. We don't know the details of how the BG was reacting once down. Trying to get up? Reaching for another weapon? We just don't know. It's the guy's attorney's job to make the jury think THEY were there and afraid for their lives.

To me, bottom line: Good guy - 1, BG - 0

It IS better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.
 
Well, too bad, but this is our legal system, and it's usually pretty good. In some countries, he would be taken out and summarily shot or jailed for an indeterminate time.
Click to expand...

I meant the Prosecutor who decided to procede with this... not our judicial system. I'm sure a half way decent lawyer will help him.
 
You shouldn't need to be educated in matters of the law to know that executing someone out on the street is not the right thing to do.

It should be a basic moral sensibility.


Notice, I say "should". I no longer have that expectation for our society.
 
I'd have to agree that it went too far. As nice as it would be to rid the world of one more slim ball and execution style shot may be legally excessive. I wasn't there and have never been in a situation like that so this is nothing more than an outsiders opinion.

We had case here in Rochester a year ago where a guy approached a few teens who had broke into his car, as they fled hey shot one kid twice killing him. The kid should have never been there breaking into cars so I don't sympathize for him at all but then again the shooter may have gone a little far shooting a person who is fleeing.
 
If the man doesn't have his gun anymore (because you are holding it.. duh), and he is on the ground....... you DON'T shoot him. You get some distance from him and prepare for the off chance that he defies simple human reaction and charges you... then you shoot.
 
It should be a basic moral sensibility.
Click to expand...

It should have been basic moral sensibility not to try to rob someone at gunpoint.

I'm not judging the vicitm based on what little we know. I agree that we don't have the right to execute criminals. But just because the attacker took a round to the back of the head doesn't make it per se murder.

I'd have to agree that it went too far.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you can make that assumption without the whole story. I mean... if there were video of the victim with his foot on the attacker's neck holding him down and shooting him, then yeah... we might be able to conclude that it "went too far".

Short of that, making the call from an article is just more internut armchair second guessing.
 
demigod said:
It should have been basic moral sensibility not to try to rob someone at gunpoint.

I'm not judging the vicitm based on what little we know. I agree that we don't have the right to execute criminals. But just because the attacker took a round to the back of the head doesn't make it per se murder.
Click to expand...


I'm judging the story as presented.


The old cliche "Two wrongs don't make a right." Mr BG was wrong. If the story is as presented, Mr Good Guy became Mr Bad Guy. Worse, in fact, than a mere robber, he is a murderer.
 
But Fitzpatrick says the medical evidence shows that Bean was also shot in the back of the head while he was on the ground. Fitzpatrick says, up to that point, Peterson was within his right to defend himself. But once Bean was down and incapacitated, it went from self defense to murder.
Click to expand...

Moral of this story? Quite shooting when he tries to crawl away......never shoot a guy in the back of the head either, it shows he was attempting to escape your area and no longer a threat is he..
 
Simply be aware that no matter how each of us rationalizes a scenario, it will be a jury, not a DA, that decides our fate.
 
Quite shooting when he tries to crawl away......never shoot a guy in the back of the head either, it shows he was attempting to escape your area and no longer a threat is he..
Click to expand...

Or crawling towards a weapon.
 
Or crawling towards a weapon.
Click to expand...

So you tussle with the bad guy, take his gun away from him, shoot him with it, and as he's crawling away, you execute him with a shot to the back of the head because "you thought he might be crawling toward another weapon"???

I couldn't even type that with a straight face.

Next, you're going to be telling us to carry a "throwdown" gun to put in his hand.
 
"you thought he might be crawling toward another weapon"???

I couldn't even type that with a straight face.

Next, you're going to be telling us to carry a "throwdown" gun to put in his hand.
Click to expand...

No, learn to read. I said "crawling toward another weapon." Not, "...thought he might be crawling..." One is absolute, one is speculative.

Gee, everyone's got a smart ass comment (that'll probably get me kicked out)...no need for a throwdown gun if he's still a menace. Only the people at the scene can determine that. The "victim" has only a second or two to determine what the BGs motives are for his movements. The penality for being wrong is severe. I'm not saying the shoot was righteous or excessive force was used - I wasn't there. What I AM saying is ALL possibilities MUST be considered before comment can even be made, much less a judgment given.
 
Or crawling towards a weapon.
Click to expand...

No other weapon was mentioned. He did a bad thing, learn from it and move on. Dont duplicate it thinking you will be OK, you may face a jury then prison as this man is now facing.

I read a story by Ayoob about a policeman that shot a man that was coming out of a house his mobile camera was running, he went to check on bad guy camera showedd this, jury was going after him tho cause it looked like he went over and finished the bad guy off. This stuff really happens, read up on some of the actual SD cases and learn from them. I would hate to see a person trying to do good go to jail for one silly mistake.
 
Sorry if I don't have alot of sympathy for the BG, it is certain if he had not tried to rob this man he would not have shot him! I am not saying what this man did was right, but I am not sure I would convict if I was called to try the case as part of the jury.
 
mzanghetti said:
I am not saying what this man did was right, but I am not sure I would convict if I was called to try the case as part of the jury.
Click to expand...


It seems odd to me that we should have no sympathy on a robber but would exonerate a murderer because he "only" murdered a robber.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top