SYG Shooter Found Guilty of Manslaughter

[zincwarrior]

So you cannot find a case where someone backing up was shot, being found to be self defense. I believe that destroys your argument.

 

[MTT TL]

Lets face it there are not many times when someone gets shot in the back after pushing someone down. There are lots of times when people have shot while fleeing, often in the back and the shooter either no billed or not been found guilty.

https://www.tcpalm.com/story/news/c...store-robbery-teen-shot-head-dies/2471167002/

Video of the never charged shooter killing the unarmed victim as he rode away.

https://local.nixle.com/alert/6079587/

No video but the suspect was shot in the back as he ran away. I will point out the deadly force is allowable in Texas in defense of property. At least it was when I lived there.

https://helenair.com/news/local/upd...cle_26e4b079-e9ca-5f27-a587-d735ce27ffc6.html

Shoots and kills fleeing victim in back. Hung jury.

 

[zukiphile]

Its not even the jury's verdict. If it was that clear cut legal under the sates self defence laws then the prosecutors would not have supported a prosecution i assume, they would have had no grounds.

Your assumption is incorrect. Read about the Duke Lacrosse episode. Prosecutors bring cases without supporting evidence.

In the Drejka case, the police initially believed they lacked probable cause. What does that say about how clear cut the case against him was?

So you cannot find a case where someone backing up was shot, being found to be self defense.

That's not solid reasoning the second time you try it either. Shifting the burden onto others doesn't demonstrate the merit of your position.

In the CA case the assailants weren't only backing up for a moment, but were fleeing, being pursued by the defendant.

I believe that destroys your argument.

Let's give that appropriate weight.

 

[manta49]

Your assumption is incorrect. Read about the Duke Lacrosse episode. Prosecutors bring cases without supporting evidence.

In the Drejka case, the police initially believed they lacked probable cause. What does that say about how clear cut the case against him was?

It says the police were obviously wrong, they don't make the laws or bring prosecutions.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

It says the police were obviously wrong, they don't make the laws or bring prosecutions.

How about the Zimmerman case, also in Florida?

In the Zimmerman case, also, the police declined to arrest the shooter (Zimmerman) because they believed the shooting fell under the Florida SYG and self defense laws. The local prosecutor also chose not to bring charges against Zimmerman.

Bowing to political pressure, the governor of Florida then appointed a special prosecutor, who brought charges and took the case to trial. Zimmerman was acquitted. So it would appear that the police and the prosecutor for that country were correct, the special prosecutor was wrong.

If a prosecutor charging someone was proof of guilt, there would be no acquittals, and no need for trials.

 

[manta49]

If a prosecutor charging someone was proof of guilt, there would be no acquittals, and no need for trials.

You are right its not proof of guilt, its proof that under their expert interpretation of the law there was in their opinion a case to answer, then a jury can decide.

Bowing to political pressure, the governor of Florida then appointed a special prosecutor, who brought charges and took the case to trial. Zimmerman was acquitted. So it would appear that the police and the prosecutor for that country were correct, the special prosecutor was wrong.

All that shows is in that case the jury came to a different conclusion. Not a good reason not bring charges, because the jury's judgement might go ageist the prosecutions case.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

You are right its not proof of guilt, its proof that under their expert interpretation of the law there was in their opinion a case to answer, then a jury can decide.

Unless the prosecutor is just carrying out a political agenda, as in the Zimmerman trial, or the prosecutor is carrying out his own agenda, as in the Duke University lacrosse players trial.

Another look at the Drejka case: https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/...ense-is-defined-out-of-existence/#more-293585

 

[Spats McGee]

So you cannot find a case where someone backing up was shot, being found to be self defense. I believe that destroys your argument.

It's an Arkansas case, so it's of limited value, but would it help if I told you that a defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense, even when he continues to shoot the deceased after the deceased is on the ground?

Lamont Reynolds testified that . . . . Mr. Cook began pushing Mr. Humphrey. Mr. Cook then reached for something at his waist under his coat as if he had a gun, but he never saw anything that resembled a gun. He testified that then Mr. Humphrey shot at Mr. Cook fifteen or sixteen times from five to ten feet away, and that he did not remember Mr. Humphrey stopping shooting and then beginning again. He stated that Mr. Humphrey was the only person doing the shooting. Mr. Cook fell after about the fourth shot, and Mr. Humphrey kept shooting after Mr. Cook was lying on the pavement. He testified that Mr. Humphrey was never in close proximity to the body while he was shooting, and that he did not walk around Mr. Cook as he shot at him. After the shooting was over, he saw Mr. Mack walk up to Mr. Cook's body, take something from the body, and put it in his pants. He left the area after the shooting. . . . .

Given the conflicting evidence on justification and the fact that the State had the burden of showing that it was the alleged excessive force, rather than the initial response, that *414 resulted in the death of the victim, we hold it was prejudicial error to have refused the instruction on justification.


Humphrey v. State, 332 Ark. 398, 966 S.W.2d 213 (1998)(emphasis supplied)

 

[zincwarrior]

Yes, I could see the instruction to that effect.

 

[zukiphile]

Another look at the Drejka case: https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/0...e/#more-293585

That's an interesting analysis. I didn't know that the defendant had articulated the Tueller drill to the police.

Misstating the law to the jury in closing arguments ("You can’t do that. You can’t be mistaken and kill somebody.") sounds like misconduct. I don't know how serious prosecutorial misconduct would need to be to overturn a conviction.

Branca makes a plausible suggestion of ineffective assistance of counsel.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Misstating the law to the jury in closing arguments ("You can’t do that. You can’t be mistaken and kill somebody.") sounds like misconduct.

In a less critical setting, several years ago I appeared at a public meeting of my town's equivalent of a board of aldermen meeting to protest a rather draconian anti-gun law that made it illegal to carry (or possess) a loaded firearm on any town-owned property. And, of course, streets and roads other than the few state roads cutting through town are town-owned property. I pointed out that there was no exception for police officers, even on duty, so our police were breaking the law every time they went on patrol. And there was no exception for carry under a state carry permit.

In the course of the discussion, the town counsel stated -- to the board and on the record -- that our state law does not allow the use of deadly force in self defense. The statement was egregiously wrong, and as soon as I got home I looked up the statute and wrote to each member of the board to inform them of exactly why the statement was wrong.

Public authorities who have an agenda and who are on a mission, even if they are attorney's, often don't let the truth stand in the way of pursuing the agenda.

If I were Drejka, I would be looking seriously at an appeal based on ineffective counsel.

 

[zukiphile]

Public authorities who have an agenda and who are on a mission, even if they are attorney's, often don't let the truth stand in the way of pursuing the agenda.

Yes, but I'm wondering whether that misstatement to the jury could have been persuasive, leading them to apply an incorrect understanding of the law.

Some prosecutorial misconduct can lead to a mistrial. A couple of years ago, a local prosecutor asked a jury to ponder why a defendant hadn't taken the stand. To her credit, the judge declared a mistrial on the spot.

If I were Drejka, I would be looking seriously at an appeal based on ineffective counsel.

If they are like the criminal defense counsel I've known, they've already drafted it.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Yes, but I'm wondering whether that misstatement to the jury could have been persuasive, leading them to apply an incorrect understanding of the law.

I'm not a lawyer, but I would certainly think so -- unless the judge did a VERY good job of correcting that misstatement in the instructions to the jury.

 

[davidsog]

Is it is possible his retreat was to gain a better advantage for attack? Sure; but if you can’t explain why you believed that in a way that sounds reasonable to the average joe, you are probably going to be convicted.

It is very simple to explain. Anyone trained in basic combative understands this principal.

The Defense could easily parade hundreds of experts from Department of Defense, Department of Justice, UFC, Boxing, and literaly every Martial Art in the entire world.

 

[zincwarrior]

It is very simple to explain. Anyone trained in basic combative understands this principal.

The Defense could easily parade hundreds of experts from Department of Defense, Department of Justice, UFC, Boxing, and literaly every Martial Art in the entire world.

You could, but would it work, is the question. Remember, typically self defense is an affirmative defense. The burden of proof is then on the defendant, not the prosecution.

 

[davidsog]

The burden of proof is then on the defendant, not the prosecution.

It would be easy to prove. I could show you in one quick incapacitating move followed by a killing blow from the position the of the SYG shooters attacker. It is neither difficult, requires no special skill or even strength. My 5'4" 110 lbs wife could kill a man in that position.

Most folks trained in Combative's could show you.

The only reason the SYG shooter is not dead is because either the attacker was ignorant of the techniques or he simply chose not to kill him. Unfortunately, the man on the ground had now way of knowing if his life was going to end or not.

Without taking his own self defense into his own hands; he was completely at the mercy of his attacker.

It looks to me like the man was dazed after being violently attacked from out of nowhere. Once he cleared his thoughts after getting into the best defensive position his lizard brain could attain in bad circumstances he realized just how precarious his situation was and chose to act in self defense to save his life.

I would have done the same and I think any reasonable person in possession of the facts in the same situation would have done the same.

 

[zukiphile]

Florida code:

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use or threatened use of force.—
(1) A person who uses or threatens to use force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in such conduct and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use or threatened use of such force by the person, personal representative, or heirs of the person against whom the force was used or threatened, unless the person against whom force was used or threatened is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.
(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use or threatened use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using or threatening to use force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used or threatened was unlawful.
(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney’s fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).
(4) In a criminal prosecution, once a prima facie claim of self-defense immunity from criminal prosecution has been raised by the defendant at a pretrial immunity hearing, the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence is on the party seeking to overcome the immunity from criminal prosecution provided in subsection (1).
History.—s. 4, ch. 2005-27; s. 6, ch. 2014-195; s. 1, ch. 2017-72.

Emphasis added. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

 

[davidsog]

The burden of proof is then on the defendant, not the prosecution.

Guess it is not that way in Florida...

Thanks Zukiphile

 

[manta49]

I would have done the same and I think any reasonable person in possession of the facts in the same situation would have done the same.

Speak for yourself, i definitely would not have shot in that situation. And anyone that did shoot as this case shows, could have plenty of jail time to reflect on their actions. The jury who were in possession of the facts disagreed that any reasonable person would have done the same.

 

[zincwarrior]

And then the prosecution would show:
1) It could also be that they were in fact disengaging from the fight.
2) Cross those same witnesses and ask them would they have shot, and then why not...
3) Bring up the local police academy trainers and ask what they train and why.

Here's the thing. You are trying to make the argument that, once someone is pushed down, the pushee now has a free shot. Unless the victim can magically transport away they will always be viewed as a threat to be shot, even when retreating. Thats not going to work with any jury outside of one made up of your local criminal gang.