one too many

No sympathy for the BG...none. He deserved it, the one to the back of the head...well, again, no sympathy... The man was protecting his wife and himself, and in the heat of the moment things like this obviously can happen.. If you don't want to be shot, don't play with guns and commit crimes while you're doing it... Unfortunately our judicial system may see it otherwise...

Now having said that..Would I do the same? Considering the potential outcome and court case..I don't think so. But of course thats easy to say while i'm typing on a keyboard..
 
Last edited:
I can say with certainty that I will not murder a person who is no threat to me, regardless of what threat they may have been 5 seconds prior.

Defense becomes murder in the blink of an eye and anyone who believes that they may not know or care when to stop shooting should not be carrying a gun.
 
I think too much has been assumed. Just because some Medical Examiner says he was murdered doesn't make it so. The guys story seems completely plausible to me.

He wrestles with a theif for a gun. Fires the gun multiple times and the theif falls down and dies. Sounds entirely possible that he fired a burst of shots the instant he got some control of the gun. The BG began to turn away as soon as he realized he was being shot. As he turned away he caught one in the back of the head.

My point is that all the M.E. knows is there is a hole in the front of the BG and a hole in the back of his head. CSI is fiction.
 
That "good guy" thing again...

The story linked by the OP failed to mention that Mr. Peterson, the defendant, is a convicted felon who was recently released from jail. According to this story, "In 1998, Peterson was sentenced to 20-years-to-life in prison for attempting to buy more than four pounds of cocaine, but he was resentenced to approximately 12 years, including time already served, in 2005."

But wait... there's more. In addition to being charged with second degree murder, he is also charged with "second degree criminal possession of a weapon," based, apparently, on his use of the mugger's own gun in what began as a clear-cut case of self-defense.

And he's being held without bail, because he "...has seven prior felony convictions and four incidents where he failed to appear in court as required."

Does he still get the benefit of the doubt from those who are maintaining that what he did was OK? If not, what difference does his status as a convicted felon make to his fundamental human right to self-defense?

Suppose he hadn't (allegedly) administered a coup de grâce, in which case it would have been a justifiable self-defense shooting. Would it still be right to charge him with the weapons violation because he used the mugger's gun to defend himself?
 
As for the situation on defending himself with the gun, he should not have faced any legal problems. However because of the alleged coup de grace, he should face something. I think having his past makes it less probable that he didn't know what he was doing was wrong.
 
Vanya said:
Suppose he hadn't (allegedly) administered a coup de grâce, in which case it would have been a justifiable self-defense shooting. Would it still be right to charge him with the weapons violation because he used the mugger's gun to defend himself?
Click to expand...


I think that there is a section of law which negates the potential possession charge in a lawful instance of self defense. I've seen it referenced before in NY when a woman who did not have a pistol permit used a handgun in SD.

In this case, theoretically, he would only be charged for illegal possession for the final, illegal shot and not for the others. Technicality, yes.
 
Suppose he hadn't (allegedly) administered a coup de grâce, in which case it would have been a justifiable self-defense shooting. Would it still be right to charge him with the weapons violation because he used the mugger's gun to defend himself?
Click to expand...

I think no charges would have been brought up on him as up until the shot to the back of the head was SD, only after he committed the criminal act would the weapons charge stick.

Convicted felon? Now I do know a lot about this type of person, I sat at a table years ago and watched 2 guys type up a hundred or so birth certs using dead peoples ss numbers. Both had large revolvers in their boots and drugs on the table. Both eventually went back to prison.

Prison folks cant be trusted, not one bit. I have seen a few in my time.
 
peetzakilla said:
I think that there is a section of law which negates the potential possession charge in a lawful instance of self defense. I've seen it referenced before in NY when a woman who did not have a pistol permit used a handgun in SD.
Click to expand...
Huh. Interesting. State or federal, I wonder? If the former, would it apply to felons, who are prohibited persons under Federal law, or just to those who are prohibited under state law?

Perhaps NavyLT will step in and enlighten us. :)

markj said:
I think no charges would have been brought up on him as up until the shot to the back of the head was SD, only after he committed the criminal act would the weapons charge stick.
Click to expand...
But a charge of "possession" relates to, well, possession, does it not? To having the gun as opposed to using it... the fact that he fired it at all should be irrelevant, except insofar as a specific law makes an exception for self-defense.
 
Last edited:
Not knowning anything about the legality - but absolutism would be silly. Someone comes at you with a gun and you disarm him. Then for that moment in time you are breaking the law?

I wonder if they threw it in just as something to maintain control of the charges - meaning tying the guy up in court.

Also, Jan Libourel from Handguns once told me that many of the self-defense stories we see are just BG vs BG.
 
Glenn E. Meyer said:
Not knowning anything about the legality - but absolutism would be silly. Someone comes at you with a gun and you disarm him. Then for that moment in time you are breaking the law?
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly. It would seem a bit... petty.

I wonder if they threw it in just as something to maintain control of the charges - meaning tying the guy up in court.
Click to expand...
One of the articles I quoted (I hope at not too great length :D) did mention that Mr. Peterson had been charged with various other (unspecified) parole violations, in addition to the weapons charge. So, yes, they clearly do want to hang on to him...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top