Man Aquitted of first degree murder under "make my day" law


PDA






jsalcedo
December 14, 2005, 11:17 PM
Man acquitted of murder under Make My Day law

A jury Wednesday ruled a shooting death last year was self-defense under the state's Make My Day law, acquitting Gary Lee Hill, who was accused of first-degree murder for killing a man who had assaulted him in his home but was in his car when he was shot.

The Make My Day law permits people to use deadly force to protect themselves from intruders into their homes.

Hill, 24, declined comment as he was leaving the courthouse.

“He’s not guilty. Justice has been done,” said his mother, Kathy Jastrab. “He didn’t deserve to even be here. Those kids beat him and robbed our home. There was no reason for him to even be on trial.”

The jury deliberated for about six hours, after being handed the case late Tuesday. Fourth Judicial District Judge Robert Lowrey presided over the two-week trial.

Hill was acquitted on charges of first-degree murder with extreme indifference, and two counts of menacing, in the shooting death of John David Knott, 19. The shooting happened Sept. 5, 2004.

“He got away with murder,” said Knott’s sister, who would only identify herself as Tina. “He was my only brother. My kids only uncle. This is a sad day.”

According to testimony, Hill had been having a party that night at the house at 513 Potter Circle. He got into an argument with Allesandra Ash and Amanda Padilla over Padilla’s missing purse. Padilla admitted punching Hill. He brandished a rifle and ordered them to leave.

The women left, called Padilla’s boyfriend, Knott, and Ash’s boyfriend, Anthony Padilla. They went back to Hill’s house and entered Hill’s basement room, where he was sleeping.

Padilla testified she hit Hill three more times, and once more with brass knuckles, causing his head to bleed. They fled the house. Hill got a high-powered rifle, loaded it and fired once from the porch into the car Knott was driving. Knott crashed the car into a house and died.

http://www.gazette.com/display.php?id=1312918

If you enjoyed reading about "Man Aquitted of first degree murder under "make my day" law" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
antsi
December 14, 2005, 11:56 PM
Based on the info in this article, I'm not sure this is the best case for our cause. Dude shot at a fleeing assailant's car. Chased the assailant outside to shoot at his car. Assailant crashes his car into someone else's house.

Maybe this isn't the whole story, but based on what's presented here, I say this is questionable judgement at best. The assailant had ceased to be a threat, and the shooter risked hurting innocent nieghbors by pursuing and shooting. I call this a "don't shoot" scenario.

4v50 Gary
December 14, 2005, 11:57 PM
That's the way it ought to be. Attack a man with brass knuckles and think you can get away scot free... I don't think so. A little rehabilitation through reincarnation will give the culprit's soul plently of time to reflect upon the wrongfulness of its way and to come to terms with its errors. In short, seeing Geezus helps! :p

Lupinus
December 15, 2005, 12:01 AM
I can understand shooting. For legal/cause reasons it would be a bad idea, from a simply moral standpoint I say hell yeah. Someone breaks into my house and starts hitting on me and then run away if not for the legal crap storm to follow I'd be tempted to shoot them too, hey for all I know they are just running for now and will be back later the next time I fall asleep.

Are we gonna start bets on how long before that law is erased?

Jeff White
December 15, 2005, 12:02 AM
The prosecutor was correct in charging him. Too bad the jury was won over by a good defense attorney.

I've not read the text of the Colorado law, but I don't think it allows you to defend yourself from intruders while they are retreating. I'm sure the Texas delegation will jump in and point out that he wouldn't have been charged in Texas because you can shoot anyone for any reason at any time there....;)

Jeff

Standing Wolf
December 15, 2005, 12:03 AM
He was my only brother. My kids only uncle. This is a sad day.

One bad influence on the next generation removed.

Preacherman
December 15, 2005, 12:07 AM
Sounds like a classic case of "jury nullification" to me.

"Yes, he broke the law, but the guy he shot was a scumbag, and we're all better off with him gone, so... NOT GUILTY!"

MarshallDodge
December 15, 2005, 12:09 AM
Two wrongs don't make a right but the guy with the brass knuckles was warned. If I were on the jury it would be a tough call but then I don't have all the details.

The-Fly
December 15, 2005, 12:15 AM
what can i say, i love my state :) Though from what little information is availible, i dont think thats a good situation to shoot, but who knows for sure.

mbt2001
December 15, 2005, 12:20 AM
The prosecutor was correct in charging him. Too bad the jury was won over by a good defense attorney.

I've not read the text of the Colorado law, but I don't think it allows you to defend yourself from intruders while they are retreating. I'm sure the Texas delegation will jump in and point out that he wouldn't have been charged in Texas because you can shoot anyone for any reason at any time there....;)

Jeff

There is an old saying in Texas. "F**K with the bull, get the horns." I am tired of criminals running around acting like they don't have anything to fear. They do. Had they done that to a police man, do you think he would have been prosecuted for smoking one of them?

Red Dragon
December 15, 2005, 12:22 AM
who knew there was a "Make my day" law? I wonder how Clint Eastwood feels about that.

Tomcat1066
December 15, 2005, 12:25 AM
Probably not the best situation to discharge his weapon from a legal standpoint. However, I can't find the energy to feel bad for the dead guy :scrutiny:

Tom

ExtremeDooty
December 15, 2005, 12:26 AM
I'm not sure that after getting sucker punched out of a sound sleep, the first thing on my mind would be the legal consequences of my actions over the next few seconds. I don't function that well for several minutes after the alarm clock goes off and all I have to think about is getting a cup of coffee.

I guess it's a good thing I live in Colorado.

ka50
December 15, 2005, 12:28 AM
the guy is obviously a pussy

a woman hit him once and he pulled an assault rifle? :scrutiny:

mbt2001
December 15, 2005, 12:35 AM
the guy is obviously a pussy

a woman hit him once and he pulled an assault rifle? :scrutiny:

What are you talking about? Some chick didn't like the fact that he wasn't providing free beer to her and her Diva friend and called up there boy friends and they beat the dude up.

Action = Consequence

Why is it OK to go beat the crap out of someone and then drive on, hit the club, smoke some dope, go to sleep. They had 3 built in Alibis. "No officer were at our place playing cards...."

Jerky's got what they deserved. It is amazing how few bar fights you get in when you don't visit bars...

Jeff White
December 15, 2005, 12:37 AM
mbt2001 asked;

Had they done that to a police man, do you think he would have been prosecuted for smoking one of them?

Yes, I do. In fact I think a police officer would be more likely to be charged in this situation then a non-sworn home owner.

Jeff

antsi
December 15, 2005, 12:43 AM
OK, I'll ammend mine:
Shootee deserved what he got. No mourning from me.
I still think the Shooter's judgement was questionable.

Steve in PA
December 15, 2005, 12:53 AM
Sounds like he got very, very lucky.

Sindawe
December 15, 2005, 01:01 AM
While legally questionable, the jury felt it to be a righteous shooting. A conclusion I concur with. One less thug in our colorful state. :D Are we gonna start bets on how long before that law is erased?While not beyond the pale, I'd not hold my breath for it to be overturned. Outside of the liberal enclaves of Boulder and Denver, Colorado is rather conservative. Occasionally this is annoying. Most of the time its a boon.

NineseveN
December 15, 2005, 02:52 AM
:D

From my understanding, as they left, they said they'd be back...which is what made the jury swing the shooter's way as it is loosely covered under the law. They're on his property, assaulted him twice, once with a deadly weapon, and then as they flee they threaten that they'll be back...

Not making a judgement either way except I don't feel bad for the dead one that's for sure.

DevLcL
December 15, 2005, 02:58 AM
About a year ago there was a drive-by shooting that was directed at the house directly across the street from me. Luckily, none of the bullets came my way. After It was all said and done I was just pissed off that I didn't have time to run out and unload my SKS into the suspected car. I live amongst many houses which are close together so now, looking back, I'm glad I didn't do that. Not only could I have hurt one of my neighbors but we all know what the ********** legal system would have done with me. I would not be nearly as lucky as this guy. Even if nobody died I'd have seperate attmepted murder charges for each person in my neighborhood (not to mention my grandma who lives across the street next to the house that got shot up, the likely direction I'd be shooting).

But boy did I ever want to give them fellas a piece of my mind.

-Dev

Note: Moving to Arizona, let this be reason number 312,667,985.

Cosmoline
December 15, 2005, 03:21 AM
Sounds like a classic case of "jury nullification" to me.

"Yes, he broke the law, but the guy he shot was a scumbag, and we're all better off with him gone, so... NOT GUILTY!"

Very similar to acquittal the famous .44 Magnum Preacher up in Big Lake last year. I think it was right to bring charges, and also right to acquit. Some people need killing, and it's the job of the jury to make that determination.

Czar
December 15, 2005, 03:22 AM
Sounds like a classic case of "jury nullification" to me.

"Yes, he broke the law, but the guy he shot was a scumbag, and we're all better off with him gone, so... NOT GUILTY!"

At first I agreed then I read the CRS:

18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
Statute text
(1) The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.

(3) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.

(4) Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.



Sounds to me like it's on the hairy edge, but they attacked him with a weapon and he had every reason to believe they "could" commit another crime either against him or someone else. Just because they were retreating didn't mean they had seen the light and would live cleanly the rest of their days, and the way the law is written, an okay to good defense lawyer should have been able to get an aquittal. The prosecutor was in an impossible situation. First of all, he was probably told he had to go after the guy. Second, Colorado Springs probably has more guns per capita than any other medium-large city in Colorado, and to convict this guy you would need 12 people who most likely did not own/hated guns AND believed he was out of bounds regarding the legal grey area. The only places in Colorado where he *may* have been convicted would be City&County of Denver, or Boulder -- and I doubt Boulder.

I bet there were 2 types of jurors on this case
1) Those like me who think he acted recklessly, but BARELY inside the letter of the law. (Not guilty because the juror felt no law was broken)
2) Those who thought the "victims" were asking for it (Not guilty by jury nullification)

Either way, not guilty, and it only takes 1.

Cosmoline
December 15, 2005, 03:25 AM
But the shooting took place as they were leaving, which is way beyond a "no duty to retreat" law.

carebear
December 15, 2005, 03:31 AM
This one falls under the "duty to allow no retreat" clause.

:evil:

The man should feel himself lucky there's no double jeopardy and apparent civil immunity.

Declaration Day
December 15, 2005, 04:01 AM
the guy is obviously a pussy

a woman hit him once and he pulled an assault rifle? :scrutiny:


I don't see how the assailant's sex matters. You have no right to hit somebody just because you're angry at them. Whether you are a man or woman, if you hit, don't come crying to me when you get hit back.

Secondly, you don't enter someone's house uninvited, and you especially don't step on someone's property intending to cause trouble.

Legally it might have been considered a bad shoot, but the guy has my support.

dlouque
December 15, 2005, 04:33 AM
Won't be coming back a second time, and I'm sure the Girls won't be returning either. My motto is " if you break into my house, and start running, I'll shoot you in the back a block away if I have to to insure you never return." We have the shoot the burglar law, and shoot the carjacker law in Louisiana.

Azrael256
December 15, 2005, 04:34 AM
So what's Knott and the gang's felony count up to? They broke in, with an obvious intent to harm Hill, so that's one apiece, somebody smacked Hill with a deadly weapon (that's banned here in Texas), so there's another, and somebody may have told somebody that Knott and Co. would return, with an obvious intent to do further harm. So that may or may not be a third, depending on the laws there and just how it's viewed.

Lockin' and loadin'? Sounds peachy to me. Giving chase? Eh, wouldn't have done it, but it sounds like what we Texans call "fresh pursuit," so I'll let him have it. Brandishing the firearm to indimidate Knott and pals to keep them away? The crime is still happening when Hill draws down, so I can't argue. Pulling the trigger? The article didn't make any mention of the threat to life and limb being imminent when Hill shot, and if he knew who the assailants were, the police could have done a much better job of apprehending. Stupid, stupid, stupid on Hill's part.

But first degree murder? Colorado may be different, and I may be flat wrong in my understanding, but I'm not seeing any real planning going into the shoot. I do see some stupid going on in the heat of the moment, so I would consider a second degree charge, and I would almost certainly convict Hill on some sort of reckless endangerment, but this just doesn't fit my understanding of first degree murder.

Devonai
December 15, 2005, 07:32 AM
Azrael is right.

Either Hill refused to accept a plea deal, preferring to take his chance with the jury, or the DA refused to press a lesser charge despite the fact that the chances of conviction would be higher.

If I was on the jury and my choices were 1st degree murder and acquittal, I would have voted to let him off too. If reckless endangerment or manslaughter was on the table, I might not have been so cavalier.

Janitor
December 15, 2005, 08:11 AM
Some people need killing, and it's the job of the jury to make that determination.
Truer words were never spoken.

And that's where the shooter almost got into really deep trouble. He made the initial decision, not the jury. Fortunately for him, they agreed with him. I agree with Czar and see this (as it's reported) as dancing on the edge of legal - I lean more towards this feeling illegal.

But, like Cosmo said - "Some people need killing". There were three people in that story who did. Now, there's one less in the world.

So - do we care how things look to the sheeple? The sheeple seem to honestly believe that nobody ever needs killing, and to kill somebody who is running away? FWIW - They're going to see an only brother and uncle - shot down in the prime of his life while trying to escape the man with the full auto black high powered semi-automatic assult machine rifle.

Happily for the shooter, the sheeple didn't run his jury.

One last point - let's not lose site that we're discussing what happened in a news article, not what happend. The difference usually isn't subtle.

Edited: Because of my flip use of the title "sheeple" above, I wanted to make sure and point out that I am NOT talking about the people here who see this as probably illegal. I'm talking about the same people we all are when we see that name.
-

Janitor
December 15, 2005, 08:14 AM
...or the DA refused to press a lesser charge despite the fact that the chances of conviction would be higher.
Hmmmmm .......
-

ExtremeDooty
December 15, 2005, 08:43 AM
After thinking about this, I thought 1st degree murder required premeditation. Without premeditation, it's a lesser degree of murder or manslaughter. Since there clearly was no premeditation, I wonder if the DA actually agreed with the shooter and purposely went with the murder 1 charge, knowing that he wouldn't get a conviction.

Working Man
December 15, 2005, 08:46 AM
Azrael is right.

Either Hill refused to accept a plea deal, preferring to take his chance with the jury, or the DA refused to press a lesser charge despite the fact that the chances of conviction would be higher.

If I was on the jury and my choices were 1st degree murder and acquittal, I would have voted to let him off too. If reckless endangerment or manslaughter was on the table, I might not have been so cavalier.

I wonder if that was intentional, bring the heaver charge knowing he would
be acquitted. Perhaps the DA did not want to charge him but felt they had
to make a good showing. Otherwise a 1st degree murder charge makes no
sense at all.

On a related note... Anyone remember the guy in Texas who had been robed
3 times in just a few months. He came home while a guy was running in his
field carrying his TV. He took his rifle out of his truck and shot him dead.
IIRC the fact that he had been robbed so many times help him not get
charged in any form.

Bluey
December 15, 2005, 09:06 AM
the guy is obviously a pussy

a woman hit him once and he pulled an assault rifle? :scrutiny:

From what I've seen working a little as a bouncer men get into fistycuffs, throw punches, maybe a few kicks, women on the other hand don't just fight dirty, they fight filthy. Women do anything from eye gougeing to trying to put their high heels through your arm. :what:

Bubbles
December 15, 2005, 09:22 AM
From what I've seen working a little as a bouncer men get into fistycuffs, throw punches, maybe a few kicks, women on the other hand don't just fight dirty, they fight filthy. Women do anything from eye gougeing to trying to put their high heels through your arm. :what:

+1.

Also, I had a firearm instructor tell me that women don't bluff. If a guy threatens deadly force, he may or may not be bluffing. If a woman does it, she's 100% serious.

LaEscopeta
December 15, 2005, 09:29 AM
I'm not sure that after getting sucker punched out of a sound sleep, the first thing on my mind would be the legal consequences of my actions over the next few seconds. I don't function that well for several minutes after the alarm clock goes off and all I have to think about is getting a cup of coffee.Me too. But from the original article:
Hill got a high-powered rifle, loaded it and fired once from the porch into the car Knott was driving. Knott crashed the car into a house and died.Does any one know if he hit the driver, or did the driver just crash the car, and the 1st degree murder charge was based on the shot caused the crash by scaring the driver into driving recklessly? If the second case is true, it would be easily to understand why the jury acquitted.

If he did hit the driver of a moving car at night, after being punched awake, with one shot, he is either lucky or a hell of a good shot.

mbt2001
December 15, 2005, 09:55 AM
There is another old saying in Texas:

"No horse ever needed stealin', but there are some men who need killin'."

middy
December 15, 2005, 10:46 AM
I'm sure the Texas delegation will jump in and point out that he wouldn't have been charged in Texas because you can shoot anyone for any reason at any time there...
That's not true. You can't give just any ol' reason, but "he needed killin'" is a valid defense. :D

TexasRifleman
December 15, 2005, 11:05 AM
I'm sure the Texas delegation will jump in and point out that he wouldn't have been charged in Texas because you can shoot anyone for any reason at any time there....;)

Jeff

You say that like it's a bad thing.
You mean it's not that way everywhere else? Goodness, how do you people sleep at night..... :evil:

Now, as to this case, it is strange that he would be charged with 1st degree murder.
Maybe this DA was trying to get him acquitted, or is an idiot.. That seems like an odd charge. Grabbing a gun seconds
after getting attacked hardly seems premeditated to me.... If I'm on a jury in this case I'm coming back not guilty also.

eastwood44mag
December 15, 2005, 11:15 AM
About damn time. If some stupid SOB plans on breaking into my place, and beating me up, he's leaving in a plastic bag.

Good to know that some are getting sick of being victims.

Coltdriver
December 15, 2005, 11:15 AM
As a Coloradoan I am delighted to see the meaning of our right to defend ourselves properly expanded. I always thought the Texans had it right in the first place. But our law is a very close second.

You come and break into my place and kick my butt and I have every right to defend myself.

This case will make a great future precedent for others to cite who may find themselves in similar circumstances.

I can find no agreement with anyone who would defend the right of a criminal to break into my house, harm me and then be allowed to run away without consequence.

We don't have many home invasion problems here!

benEzra
December 15, 2005, 11:19 AM
a woman hit him once and he pulled an assault rifle?
Where did it say what kind of rifle was used?

(BTW, I can almost guarantee it wasn't an "assault rifle." You can bet that if the guy used an NFA Title 2 restricted automatic weapon in the shooting, it'd be in the article. SKS, civilian AK lookalike, or AR-15, maybe; assault rifle, no way in this case.)

Preacherman
December 15, 2005, 11:39 AM
CNN has a report on this with a couple of interesting comments (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/15/make.myday.ap/index.html):

Man acquitted of murder under 'Make My Day' law

Thursday, December 15, 2005; Posted: 8:28 a.m. EST (13:28 GMT)

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado (AP) -- A man accused of fatally shooting someone in a car has been acquitted of first-degree murder under a state law that provides legal protection to homeowners who defend themselves.

But a legislator says the 1985 law -- known as the "Make My Day" law -- may have been misinterpreted by the jury.

Gary Lee Hill, 24, faced charges in the 2004 killing of 19-year-old John David Knott, who along with three others had assaulted Hill in his home.

Hill was accused of firing a shot into a car that Knott was driving. Knott crashed into a house and died from a single gunshot wound to the back, authorities said.

"It's a miscarriage of justice," said Sen. Jim Brandon, who helped craft the law. The law meant a home's door to be a threshold for an illegal entry, not down the street, he said.

Prosecutor Lisa Kirkman said the law says deadly force can be used "if the shooter reasonably believes the other person might use physical force against the home dweller."

According to testimony, Knott and the others showed up at Hill's house after an argument over a missing purse.

"Gary went through this horrible and traumatic event," said defense attorney Ted McClintock. "They promised they were going to come back in. They had already come back once."

NineseveN
December 15, 2005, 11:43 AM
CNN has a report on this with a couple of interesting comments (http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/15/make.myday.ap/index.html):


"Gary went through this horrible and traumatic event," said defense attorney Ted McClintock. "They promised they were going to come back in. They had already come back once."

If that isn't enough, I am of the firm opinion that it ought to be. Of course, did they really say they'd be back? Hard to prove I think.

6inch
December 15, 2005, 11:58 AM
I way I see it is the four punks went looking for trouble and found it!

I can also see where the two girls could wind up with a couple felony charges. 1) Instigating and taking part in the home invasion. 2) Battery involving a deadly weapon.

Father Knows Best
December 15, 2005, 12:01 PM
Sounds like a classic case of "jury nullification" to me.

"Yes, he broke the law, but the guy he shot was a scumbag, and we're all better off with him gone, so... NOT GUILTY!"

+1. Also known as the "he needed killin" defense.

boofus
December 15, 2005, 12:05 PM
Good shoot and the jury agrees.

HankB
December 15, 2005, 12:12 PM
The perp wasn't shot after fleeing a simple B&E which resulted in theft of a VCR or something, the perp was shot after participating in a violent assault during a home invasion.

I would say that made all the difference in the world to the jury.

It does to me, too.

VirgilCaine
December 15, 2005, 12:31 PM
If that isn't enough, I am of the firm opinion that it ought to be. Of course, did they really say they'd be back? Hard to prove I think.

That line you quoted makes the difference here. Pattern of violent conduct and harassment is established...sounds clean to me.

MechAg94
December 15, 2005, 12:35 PM
Regardless, the jury deliberated for 6 hours. I have served on a jury in a murder trial before, 6 hours is nothing. I would say over half the jury was convinced before deliberations.

Jeff White
December 15, 2005, 01:24 PM
I suppose that all of you who think Hill was justified shooting at them when they were fleeing would also excuse Hill if he had went to their home a couple of days later and shot them. After all, they promised to come back....There is no difference. The prosecutor was right. I don't agree with first degree murder, but it was correct to charge Hill. The attack was over. His assailants were leaving.

Jeff

NineseveN
December 15, 2005, 01:50 PM
I suppose that all of you who think Hill was justified shooting at them when they were fleeing would also excuse Hill if he had went to their home a couple of days later and shot them. After all, they promised to come back....There is no difference

I'm not so sure:

1. They were still within proximity of his property. If he goes to theirs, he is now trespassing, and it is obviously premeditated. Murder 1 would probably stick then, and it probably should.

In this case, they were still within proximity; they were possibly still on his property when he took the shot.

He has no moral (maybe legal, maybe not) obligation to wait for them to wound him or make good on their threats, he assessed what their intentions were and perceived a threat. They could have been all getting into the car to grab a few handguns out of the glove box to go and finish him off. They could have been plotting to go back in and kill him right then seeing as they already would be hit up with a felony or two and he could ID at least one or two of them. It is not his obligation to wait until they make a third attempt to inflict serious bodily harm on him. They very well may have said, "we'll be back" while he was lying there after being beaten with some brass knuckles, and then they departed. A reasonable person may assume that either they meant at a later time that night, a later date or even a few minutes. So he arms himself and goes out, sees them in the car, and whatever transpired convinced him to shoot. They may have said something, they may have said nothing, they may have given him some good tips on planting squash during the fall, we don't really know.

What we do know for a fact is that he was assaulted twice that evening by members of this group, the second time with a deadly weapon, both times in his own home. Brandishing his rifle did not serve as a deterrent as they came back, with help (though it is unclear if the newcomers into the group knew about the firearm or not at that time). His home was broken into and this group of people that assaulted him trespassed upon his property.

All the shooter did was have a party, argue with a girl over her keys or purse, brandish a rifle and went to bed.

Sorry but all we have to go on is some media accounts, a jury decision and speculation. We can speculate because we are not determining his guilt or innocence, the jury has already done so, we are simply discussing this because it is interesting and this is a discussion forum.

In this discussion, I'm going to give the shooter the benefit of the doubt that he acted as I would have and felt that they posed a reasonable threat to his life or physical well being, and I will trust the jury that he acted within the scope of the law. Thus, I rule it a good shoot.


The prosecutor was right. I don't agree with first degree murder, but it was correct to charge Hill. The attack was over. His assailants were leaving.

Jeff

I agree with the prosecutor as well. He thought he either had a case, or decided to charge Hill with something he knew would never stick as one could not really prove premeditation for 1st degree murder, either way, he brought his case before the jury, who then found Hill not guilty. If it was correct for the DA to charge Hill, then, as they were most likely acting on their conscience, the Jury was right to render a not guilty verdict, that's the point of a jury.

But you say they were leaving, leaving to go where, to get what and to do what? Is Hill supposed to wait for them to come back armed a few minutes later before the police can arrive after he dials 9-1-1, so he can play out someone's Rambo fantasy in his front yard and hope he makes it through the night?

Judged, not carried. YMMV.

oldfart
December 15, 2005, 02:29 PM
Jeff, several years ago, in a town south of here, a drug dealer made some threats toward a young woman. The father of the lady found the dealer sitting in a bar and-- without warning-- shot him dead!
He walked.
The jury seemed to feel that the threat to his daughter was real enough to excuse his actions. The police, on the other hand, could do nothing until there was some attempt to carry out the threat. The father, feeling (perhaps correctly) that waiting was too dangerous for his daughter, simply elected to "remove" the threat.

Trip20
December 15, 2005, 03:11 PM
I suppose that all of you who think Hill was justified shooting at them when they were fleeing would also excuse Hill if he had went to their home a couple of days later and shot them. After all, they promised to come back....There is no difference.

There is most certainly a difference, Jeff.

Your comparison scenario displays premeditation, and there is no way to argue against the fact that immediate threat to your life has ended in your "couple days later" scenario.

With the REAL scenario, his shooting shows no premeditation. Instead, the shooter is reacting to intruders in his home who are assaulting him with a deadly weapon. From the information given, how do we know that the assailants were not going to their vehicle for more weapons? The articles do not state he took a 300-yard shot.

The prosecutor said it herself:
says the law says deadly force can be used "if the shooter reasonably believes the other person might use physical force against the home dweller."

How do we know the shooter wasn't in fear for his life? And reasonably so? Are we to allow assailants to retreat, re-arm, and return? Especially when you've already been assaulted with and threatened by a deadly weapon, and also supposedly told by the assailants that they’ll be back?

Bad shoot regarding firearms safety (know your target and beyond)... Otherwise, I can’t blame the guy for shooting his attacker.

rudolf
December 15, 2005, 05:17 PM
Give him a one dollar fine for not shooting early enough. The let him live in peace.

Nekron
December 15, 2005, 05:58 PM
The perp wasn't shot after fleeing a simple B&E which resulted in theft of a VCR or something, the perp was shot after participating in a violent assault during a home invasion.

I would say that made all the difference in the world to the jury.

It does to me, too.


+1

Mannlicher
December 15, 2005, 06:37 PM
I have to admit to having mixed feelings about this. The guy killed does not seem to be the one that did the beating. Of course, this 'macho' culture is partly to blame. Same crap here in Miami.

redneck2
December 15, 2005, 07:13 PM
Yeah, I've got mixed feelings on this too....

Glad that he got one.....

Sad that he only got one....

HankB
December 15, 2005, 07:14 PM
I suppose that all of you who think Hill was justified shooting at them when they were fleeing would also excuse Hill if he had went to their home a couple of days later and shot them.Actually, I don't think he'd still be bleeding from the head (after getting slugged by brass knuckles during a violent home invasion) a couple of days later . . . considering how head wounds tend to bleed, I doubt very much that the blood had even congealed when he pulled the trigger.

It's not reasonable to say "It's over, stop what you're doing" to a man who's still bleeding after being violently attacked in his own home.

TallPine
December 15, 2005, 07:31 PM
This is why we have juries :)

Doesn't matter if they interpreted the law correctly or not, the jury could find him "not guilty" for any or no reason - though the :cuss: judge and prosecutors don't want you to know that!

1911austin
December 15, 2005, 07:42 PM
I'm sure the Texas delegation will jump in and point out that he wouldn't have been charged in Texas because you can shoot anyone for any reason at any time there....;)

Jeff

God bless Texas.

michael_aos
December 15, 2005, 08:01 PM
We've had a couple cases involving "Make my day" now.

Another one dealt with a women who leaned out her upstairs window and shot a man on her doorstep.

The law basically says you have the right to be safe inside your home and inside your "personal conveyance" (car).

If you are in your home, or in your car, you may use deadly force if you "feel threatened".

Mike

atblis
December 16, 2005, 09:35 AM
That guy needs to get himself a good dog! Akitas look cool Supposedly a pretty good guard dog.

Shooting people while they're leaving. I don't know about that one.

Shooting people because they deserve it. Yeah, why not.

Me on jury.

Probably acquitted (wasn't there so...).

atblis
December 16, 2005, 09:36 AM
have absolutely no sypmpathy for the relatives. It sounds like the guy was piece of ???? and got what he deserved (Yes people deserve killing).

Dr.Rob
December 16, 2005, 01:13 PM
Just a note since I live in Colorado... you have the right to self defense guaranteed by the State Constitution... the "make my day law" protects homeowners from CIVIL LIABILITY in defending themselves.

IE you shoot a burgler, his family can't sue you for 'taking away his livelihood' etc.

The "make my day" law has been mis-quoted so often that many people think that it means something else entirely.

In fact, the usual case here is the prosecutor and cops sit down and say 'good shoot/bad shoot' and THEN apply the 'make my day' law to protect the victim/shooter. In this case it sounds like they did the right thing, deciding the shoot was questionable and sending it to a jury. The jury aquits, then the make my day law applies... the defendant is shielded from civil liability.

The 'guidelines' for a 'self defense' shoot are codefied elsewhere.

The 'lesser charge' was likely 'unlawfully discharging a weapon within city limits' (the standard charge ALL self defense shooters will be charged with initially, along with surrendering the weapon in question)

el44vaquero
December 16, 2005, 01:26 PM
Back in 1987, Oklahoma passed a Make My Day Law. The page said home invasions dropped by half in that one year alone.

joab
December 19, 2005, 12:31 AM
Without premeditation, it's a lesser degree of murder or manslaughter. Since there clearly was no premeditation, Hill got a high-powered rifle, loaded it and fired once from the porch into the car Knott was driving.That is premeditation.

Bad shoot
Good for him

Hawken50
December 19, 2005, 01:07 AM
But a legislator says the 1985 law -- known as the "Make My Day" law -- may have been misinterpreted by the jury.
i was always under the impression that, regardless of what the judge, prosecutor, baliff, or janitor says, the jury has the right and the duty to interpret the law as they see fit.
"It's a miscarriage of justice," said Sen. Jim Brandon, who helped craft the law. The law meant a home's door to be a threshold for an illegal entry, not down the street, he said.
this guy must take lessons from my wife. "i know what i said, but you should have known that i ment something else entirely."
if the law was ment to say the homes door is the threshold, then it should say it.
There is an old saying in Texas. "F**K with the bull, get the horns."
i was always a fan of "if you're going to kick a tiger in the ass, you'd better have a plan for dealing with its teeth."

artherd
December 19, 2005, 01:23 AM
My personal opinion:

Padilla testified she hit Hill three more times, and once more with brass knuckles, causing his head to bleed. They fled the house. Hill got a high-powered rifle, loaded it and fired once from the porch into the car Knott was driving. Knott crashed the car into a house and died.

Should have fired 2 more shots and killed everyone in the car.

carebear
December 19, 2005, 02:20 AM
I'm not sure the simple act of loading a weapon equals "premeditation".

How do you then draw a clear legal line determining exactly how prior to a shooting such loading is murderous?

What if he grabbed the same rifle (or shotgun or pistol) with a loaded magazine inserted (cruiser ready) and simply chambered the round then shot?

There's more intentionality to premeditation in 1st degree murder than simply grabbing and loading a weapon in the midst of an incident. Until he exited and saw they were driving away he was simply fighting back "in the moment" and defending his home by chasing the invaders outside.

It's the fact they were driving away when he fired that makes it dicey, not the fact he had to pick up and load a rifle on the way out the door to do it.

Byron Quick
December 19, 2005, 02:20 AM
The prosecutor may have been correct in charging the young man. However, I wish to obtain the identity of the prosecutor so that, if he enters politics, I may have the pleasure of rewarding his fidelity by voting for his opponent.

This man killed a person who had invaded his home and assaulted him. What does this killing mean to me? It means the deceased will never be able to invade my home or the homes of friends and relatives. Nor will he be able to assault us.

The laws limiting self defense need to be changed. To something of this nature: if you assault someone or forcibly enter their home then it's open season on you for the victim...forever. Simple. Whap somebody up side the head with brass knuckles. Get away. They see you two years later and blow your head off. Justified. Don't want that to happen to your near and dear? Again, simple. Teach them not to break into houses and whup on people.

NineseveN
December 19, 2005, 02:57 AM
My personal opinion:



Should have fired 2 more shots and killed everyone in the car.

:what:

Might have been a little extreme, but if you have ever been the victim of a violent drime like the shooter was, then you might just be having a hard time not thinking like that. Gun owners are human too, this guy was the victim and I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt because of that, not because he is a gun owner.

NineseveN
December 19, 2005, 03:00 AM
The prosecutor may have been correct in charging the young man. However, I wish to obtain the identity of the prosecutor so that, if he enters politics, I may have the pleasure of rewarding his fidelity by voting for his opponent.

This man killed a person who had invaded his home and assaulted him. What does this killing mean to me? It means the deceased will never be able to invade my home or the homes of friends and relatives. Nor will he be able to assault us.

The laws limiting self defense need to be changed. To something of this nature: if you assault someone or forcibly enter their home then it's open season on you for the victim...forever. Simple. Whap somebody up side the head with brass knuckles. Get away. They see you two years later and blow your head off. Justified. Don't want that to happen to your near and dear? Again, simple. Teach them not to break into houses and whup on people.


Byron, do you have a personal experience with a stiuation like this? Either yourself or someone dear to you? I do have such experience, and I am sure that's where my feelings on this come from, at least partly. It sounds like you know how the real world works, and that there is usually no such thing as a one-time home-invader or violent attacker unless they are catching dirt.

Byron Quick
December 19, 2005, 05:33 AM
Nineseven,

I've more experience than I would wish. Seven friends and relatives murdered in the past twenty-five years. Came home on a burglar one night.
I've been left lying paralyzed in the middle of a highway in the middle of the night after being bludgeoned from behind.

I have no sympathy for the logic behind letting the poor criminal go for he has finished his assault and now simply wants to flee and no longer be a threat to anyone. It is fallacious logic and it is folly. And good men have been sent to prison because of it.

ingram
December 19, 2005, 07:35 AM
I think we are all agreed that the attacker is much improved in death.

Lets try to look at it from the shooter's standpoint:

There is an argument between you and others, words are exchanged, a girl hits you, and you exercise your right to not be beaten, brandishing a weapon to remove the threat. (A questionable act, but what is done is done). They threaten to return, and this worries you. You lock your doors, wanting nothing to do with them. You manage to fall asleep despite your emotions...

You are jarred awake by a sharp pain, fists crashing into your face. The Padilla lady puts on some brass knuckles and proceeds to give you a concussion. Your dazed, bleeding profusely from your skull as the attackers run out the door.

You manage to struggle your brain into focus and immediately fear that they are going to return. Your head is in horrible pain, blood is trickling down into your eyes as well. You have been assualted and your first thought is to get to your gun. You had a clear view of your attackers as they were leaving, knowing they had made good on their threat to return and cause you harm.

You manage to run upstairs and load up your SKS. Your head is throbbing in pain as you look out your window to see your attackers backing out of your driveway. Fresh blood is trickling down your face, you are dazed and angry, hardly believing what just happened was real. They had probably meant to kill you, you feel lucky to be alive, and know that they are likely to return some other time. They have made good on their threat so obviously have no qualms with violence. You take aim with your SKS as the car is pulling away...


I hope none of us here can say what it is like to wake from a brass knuckle beating. I can only imagine the emotions I would be feeling, especially after being threatened in such a manner.

I would not have taken the shot, but I can easily see how he felt his actions were justified. I don't know the full story so can't make that call. The smart thing to do would have been to alert the authorities, they tend to take people fresh from beatings quite seriously. It could have ended better, but in my mind, beating on someone in their sleep is an inexcusable act. I'm not sure whether death is the best punishment, as the circumstances of the shooting are kind of... dodgy.

I would have to support the jury's decision. I'm sure they didn't take this case lightly and have damn good reason for letting him off.

I hope most people here can agree that their judgement might be cloudy fresh from an assualt. Emotions would be running at maximum, and the shooter may very well have percieved the threat as remaining even while the attackers were backing out of his driveway.

My 2 cents, sorry for being long-winded.

joab
December 19, 2005, 10:07 AM
I'm not sure the simple act of loading a weapon equals "premeditation".Premeditation does not mean taking a day or two to think a plan through

He thought to grab the rifle, he thought to load it, he thought to pursue his prey, he thought to aim and fire. All of this after the immediate danger had passed

Each of the above steps should be enough to give a person pause to consider what they are going to do

He made a plan and followed through.
Good for him, but don't expect the same outcome next time

NineseveN
December 19, 2005, 10:43 AM
Nineseven,

I've more experience than I would wish. Seven friends and relatives murdered in the past twenty-five years. Came home on a burglar one night.
I've been left lying paralyzed in the middle of a highway in the middle of the night after being bludgeoned from behind.

I have no sympathy for the logic behind letting the poor criminal go for he has finished his assault and now simply wants to flee and no longer be a threat to anyone. It is fallacious logic and it is folly. And good men have been sent to prison because of it.

Roger that, I know exactly where you are coming from. Myself, I still can't shake the feeling of it all...havinjg an attacker get away and wondering for hours, days, weeks, maybe even years if he's coming back or not...looking over your shoulder when you're an innocent man is no way to spend your life. Cheers, have a virtual beer on me.

NineseveN
December 19, 2005, 10:56 AM
Premeditation does not mean taking a day or two to think a plan through

He thought to grab the rifle, he thought to load it, he thought to pursue his prey, he thought to aim and fire. All of this after the immediate danger had passed

Each of the above steps should be enough to give a person pause to consider what they are going to do

He made a plan and followed through.
Good for him, but don't expect the same outcome next time

That does not fit the definition of premedititation.

Premeditation:
The contemplation of a crime well enough in advance to show deliberate intent to commit the crime; forethought.


The operative words being "well enough in advance". IMHO, the SHTF when this guy woke up, he reacted and someone wound up dead...but IANAL, so YMMV. Reaction, regardless of whether or not there are multiple steps involved in the reaction, does not equal premeditiation. Otherwise, all shooting would be premeditated. The simple act of removing your cover garment, drawing your weapon out of your holster, taking a stance, removing the safety, aiming and firing is the same amount of steps involved as what our shooter in this case did.

Grabbing a gun and loading a round is not premeditaion. Goinig outside to confront your attackers is not even necessarily premeditiation. It's a very fine line, I can see why he was not convicted. If the charge was third degree murder, it might have stuck. Voluntary manslaughter had the best chance to stick though; in fact, given the right jury, it would have been a near slam dunk.

§ 2503. Voluntary manslaughter.
(a) General rule.-A person who kills an individual without lawful justification commits voluntary manslaughter if at the time of the killing he is acting under a sudden and intense passion resulting from serious provocation by:


the individual killed; or
another whom the actor endeavors to kill, but to negligently or accidently causes the death of the individual killed.

(b) Unreasonable belief killing justifiable.-A person who intentionally or knowingly kills an individual commits voluntary manslaughter if at the time of the killing he believes the circumstances to be such that, if they existed, would justify the killing under Chapter 5 of this title (relating to general principles of justification), but his belief is unreasonable.

(c) Grading.-Voluntary manslaughter is a felony of the first degree.


Now, that's PA law mind you, but I would assume it is similar in most states.

joab
December 19, 2005, 06:59 PM
The contemplation of a crime well enough in advance to show deliberate intent to commit the crime; forethought.
I pretty much outlined his deliberations, which were well enough in advance to stop himself at any point.

Grabbing a gun and loading a round is not premeditaion. Depends on the jury and how the case is presented
And the article did not say he loaded a round it said he loaded the gun

Hawkmoon
December 19, 2005, 07:27 PM
I would say that anything that takes place in the "heat of the moment" does not fit any reasonable definition of premeditation. This might qualify as second degree murder rather than manslaughter, but the circumstances do not appear to indicate premeditation.

Joab, you sound like a prosecutor who was quoted as saying that "premeditation can occur in an instant." That's idiotic.

tuckerdog1
December 19, 2005, 07:37 PM
Whether you're on the side that thinks this was a bad shoot, or the side that thinks it was a good shoot, one thing's for sure. It sends a powerful message to the vermin out there that think they are free to assault & flee without serious payback.

Tuckerdog1

NineseveN
December 19, 2005, 07:40 PM
I pretty much outlined his deliberations, which were well enough in advance to stop himself at any point.

Depends on the jury and how the case is presented
And the article did not say he loaded a round it said he loaded the gun

It's still legally Voluntary Manslaughter, at least according to PA law...which I assume is similar. But hey, you're entitled to your opinion I suppose. :neener:

LaVere
December 20, 2005, 09:36 AM
I'm not so sure:

1. They were still within proximity of his property. If he goes to theirs, he is now trespassing, and it is obviously premeditated. Murder 1 would probably stick then, and it probably should.

In this case, they were still within proximity; they were possibly still on his property when he took the shot.

He has no moral (maybe legal, maybe not) obligation to wait for them to wound him or make good on their threats, he assessed what their intentions were and perceived a threat. They could have been all getting into the car to grab a few handguns out of the glove box to go and finish him off. They could have been plotting to go back in and kill him right then seeing as they already would be hit up with a felony or two and he could ID at least one or two of them. It is not his obligation to wait until they make a third attempt to inflict serious bodily harm on him. They very well may have said, "we'll be back" while he was lying there after being beaten with some brass knuckles, and then they departed. A reasonable person may assume that either they meant at a later time that night, a later date or even a few minutes. So he arms himself and goes out, sees them in the car, and whatever transpired convinced him to shoot. They may have said something, they may have said nothing, they may have given him some good tips on planting squash during the fall, we don't really know.

What we do know for a fact is that he was assaulted twice that evening by members of this group, the second time with a deadly weapon, both times in his own home. Brandishing his rifle did not serve as a deterrent as they came back, with help (though it is unclear if the newcomers into the group knew about the firearm or not at that time). His home was broken into and this group of people that assaulted him trespassed upon his property.

All the shooter did was have a party, argue with a girl over her keys or purse, brandish a rifle and went to bed.

Sorry but all we have to go on is some media accounts, a jury decision and speculation. We can speculate because we are not determining his guilt or innocence, the jury has already done so, we are simply discussing this because it is interesting and this is a discussion forum.

In this discussion, I'm going to give the shooter the benefit of the doubt that he acted as I would have and felt that they posed a reasonable threat to his life or physical well being, and I will trust the jury that he acted within the scope of the law. Thus, I rule it a good shoot.




I agree with the prosecutor as well. He thought he either had a case, or decided to charge Hill with something he knew would never stick as one could not really prove premeditation for 1st degree murder, either way, he brought his case before the jury, who then found Hill not guilty. If it was correct for the DA to charge Hill, then, as they were most likely acting on their conscience, the Jury was right to render a not guilty verdict, that's the point of a jury.

But you say they were leaving, leaving to go where, to get what and to do what? Is Hill supposed to wait for them to come back armed a few minutes later before the police can arrive after he dials 9-1-1, so he can play out someone's Rambo fantasy in his front yard and hope he makes it through the night?

Judged, not carried. YMMV.



I could not have said it better.
He did not spray the streets with gun fire. One shot one kill. Not much danger to anyone else.

yonderway
December 20, 2005, 12:23 PM
-delete-

Trip20
December 20, 2005, 12:28 PM
I pretty much outlined his deliberations, which were well enough in advance to stop himself at any point.
Pretty easy to say from behind a keyboard.

Drysdale
December 20, 2005, 12:30 PM
The prosecutor was correct in charging him. Too bad the jury was won over by a good defense attorney.

I've not read the text of the Colorado law, but I don't think it allows you to defend yourself from intruders while they are retreating. I'm sure the Texas delegation will jump in and point out that he wouldn't have been charged in Texas because you can shoot anyone for any reason at any time there....;)

Jeff

No no no... you can only shoot YANKEES for any reason at any time. You have to be more circumspect with Southerners...

Drysdale
December 20, 2005, 12:32 PM
the guy is obviously a pussy

a woman hit him once and he pulled an assault rifle? :scrutiny:

Please define the term "Assault Rifle."

NineseveN
December 20, 2005, 12:32 PM
-delete-

I did catch your post before you deleted it, while I disagreed with it, it seemed well presented and thoughtful. I am curious as to why you deleted it...though it's none of my business.

yonderway
December 20, 2005, 01:51 PM
I did catch your post before you deleted it, while I disagreed with it, it seemed well presented and thoughtful. I am curious as to why you deleted it...though it's none of my business.

I seemed to have misread the abstract the first time through and didn't realize initially that this was a response to a series of assaults carried out in one day, leaving the shooter wondering if they were going to come back again for more.

joab
December 20, 2005, 06:36 PM
Pretty easy to say from behind a keyboard.That has got to be one of the lamest most over used insults left on the net

Did I run into DU by mistake

I disagree with the shoot, and am apparently backed up by a prosecutor somewhere, and now I'm an idiotic keyboard commando.
I live in Ocoee Fl, it's a small town, I'm easy to find, if you want to see if I respond the same way in person

Next time one of you get into a situation where you have to decide whether or not to fire on a fleeing assailant or raccoon feeder thief that poses no more immediate danger to you go ahead and pull the trigger.

$10 bucks says your back here whining about being charged for their murder

NineseveN
December 20, 2005, 09:46 PM
I seemed to have misread the abstract the first time through and didn't realize initially that this was a response to a series of assaults carried out in one day, leaving the shooter wondering if they were going to come back again for more.

Fair enough. :)

Stevie-Ray
December 20, 2005, 10:45 PM
I suppose that all of you who think Hill was justified shooting at them when they were fleeing would also excuse Hill if he had went to their home a couple of days later and shot them. After all, they promised to come back....There is no difference. The prosecutor was right. I don't agree with first degree murder, but it was correct to charge Hill. The attack was over. His assailants were leaving.

JeffI can't buy into this. While I probably wouldn't have done what he did, I probably WOULD have had a gun near me, and used it while they were still in the house. You can't simply come in, beat hell out of me, and run back out while yelling over your shoulder, "Don't even think of shooting us! As you can plainly see, we're leaving! And, if we come back and beat you senseless again and leave before you can get a clear shot, you are NOT pulling that trigger, remember that! We can do this as many times as we want!"
Too many scumbags are working the laws to their advantage and getting minimal punishment if any. Sorry but this case gives me a sneaky yet warm fuzzy feeling.

Trip20
December 20, 2005, 11:25 PM
joab -

I pretty much outlined his deliberations, which were well enough in advance to stop himself at any point.

Pretty easy to say from behind a keyboard.
I'm pointing out that it's easy to say the victim could stop himself at any point when you are not the person being assaulted (for the second time) in your own home; but instead you're sitting behind a keyboard in a calm environment.

While you may agree with allowing your attackers to retreat, re-arm, and re-attempt an assault with a deadly weapon, I do not.

I also don't care to pay airfare, fly to your small town in FL, only to find out you make gross assumptions in person - not just behind your keyboard.

I don't own a raccoon feeder, and I didn't call you an "idiotic keyboard commando". Don't be so sensitive.

joab
December 20, 2005, 11:53 PM
While you may agree with allowing your attackers to retreat, re-arm, and re-attempt an assault with a deadly weapon, I do not.Talk about gross assumptions
Please show me where I suggested any of that or where there was any credible threat of them returning with a deadly weapon. If they had meant more than they did the four of them could have stayed and finished the job.

I guess grabbing a rifle, that obviously is not a dedicated self defense gun, loading the weapon, pursuing your prey up stairs to where they are now in their car leaving the scene and unable to cause you any immediate danger and firing into the car makes more sense to you than calling the police to report a second attack with injuries and remaing in your home.
(If a cop had done that we would be reading a cops suck thread now)

But I know, some times a man gotta be a man.
Like pulling a rifle on a girl because she bitch slaps you
I'm pointing out that it's easy to say the victim could stop himself at any point when you are not the person being assaulted (for the second time) in your own home; but instead you're sitting behind a keyboard in a calm environment.Then what you are pointing out is false.
He was not being assaulted. The assault was over. He was being pissed off and seeking retribution. And what makes you think that my whole life has been spent behind this keyboard in the sheltered enviroment of my home

Trip20
December 21, 2005, 01:02 AM
Please show me where I suggested any of that or where there was any credible threat of them returning with a deadly weapon.
The assailants did return with a deadly weapon.

Padilla testified she hit Hill three more times, and once more with brass knuckles, causing his head to bleed.

The victim was initially assaulted in his home and asked the assailant to leave. The assailant returned, with backup, and with a deadly weapon.

We have an initial assault.
We have the assailant returning.
We have the assailant returning with greater numbers.
We have the assailant returning with greater numbers and a deadly weapon.

Not entirely ridiculous for the victim to fear they would return again, for a 3rd time, is it?

Not entirely ridiculous for the victim to fear they would return again, for the 3rd time, with more people, is it?

Not entirely ridiculous for the bictim to fear they would return again, for the 3rd time, with more deadly (or deadlier) weapons, is it?

Not entirely ridiculous for the victim to fear they would return again, for the 3rd time, when they promised to do so, is it?

"Gary went through this horrible and traumatic event," said defense attorney Ted McClintock. "They promised they were going to come back in. They had already come back once."

If they had meant more than they did the four of them could have stayed and finished the job.
Really? How do you know this? Source please. Nevermind, we know there's no source. Only your feeling.

joab
December 21, 2005, 01:10 AM
Not entirely ridiculous for the victim to fear they would return again, for a 3rd time, is it?But I guess calling the police would be ridiculous.

Nevermind, we know there's no source. Only your feeling.That's right my behind the keyboard feelings. Could you please come up with some original insults.

Maybe this will teach him to call the police next time feels the need to threaten a female with deadly force for slapping him.
If he had taken that rational course of action he may not have had to take the irrational couse he chose later

joab
December 21, 2005, 01:26 AM
Trip this makes the second time I have been subjected to your petty and juvenile insults over a difference of opinion.

I see no reason to engage someone who obviously lacks the maturity to accept another's differring view points without poorly executed third grade taunts so I'll just ignore you.

I have made my opinons crystal clear for anybody that want's to read them.
If another member want's to discuss what I have actually written or try to change my views, I welcome the conversation
Oh look I have a new sig line

Trip20
December 21, 2005, 02:07 AM
As I re-read my posts (all 3 that are directed to you, not including this post), I see no insults. You have definitely taken what I've said as an insult - that's obvious. I'm sure, then, that you should report my insulting posts to the moderators?

I did ask you not to be so sensitive when you took my comment about being behind the keyboard, to mean you're an "idiotic keyboard commando" - your words, not mine. Not sure how you made that leap, but you're doing it with each of my posts.

I see it in the reverse, though I don’t feel insulted. Your own posts would insult you, though:

That has got to be one of the lamest most over used insults left on the net

Did I run into DU by mistake

your petty and juvenile

someone who obviously lacks the maturity

poorly executed third grade taunts

I'm easy to find, if you want to see if I respond the same way in person

I agree we should discontinue our conversation, especially since an otherwise good thread may be shut down for veering on to the low road.

I'll leave this thread to you.

lbmii
December 22, 2005, 04:25 AM
Well the upshot of the whole thing is to not date girls who break into homes, carry brass knuckles, and hit sleeping people in the face with those brass knuckles.

Well then again if she's OK in some other ways maybe you can look past some of those minor personality glitches. But whatever you do; never fall asleep around her when she’s mad!

Oh and by the way the person that should have been charged with murder was Amanda Padilla because a death resulted during her commission of a felony.

The jury let this fellow go and that is the jury’s right, but it could have gone the other way. Many people are in jail for similar reasons. He will lose the civil trial.

Ryder
December 22, 2005, 05:15 AM
He unloaded his gun after chasing people off with it and they threatened to return? Looks like we need a new condition of awareness. What's lower than white?

jsalcedo
December 22, 2005, 11:30 AM
Well the upshot of the whole thing is to not date girls who break into homes, carry brass knuckles, and hit sleeping people in the face with those brass knuckles.

She must be pretty hot for a guy to put up with that.

What do you bet they are back together now :D

NineseveN
December 22, 2005, 11:33 AM
He unloaded his gun after chasing people off with it and they threatened to return? Looks like we need a new condition of awareness. What's lower than white?

Condition, pink?

Or how about, 'condition brass'? <----ewwww, bad joke. :o

Arethusa
December 22, 2005, 11:54 AM
Jokes aside, I really do not see how this is first degree murder. You don't need a 'make my day' law (and it certainly is disturbing when bad action movies are being used to name our laws) for him to be acquitted solely on grounds that this was not premeditated. I can definitely see him being convicted of second.

If you enjoyed reading about "Man Aquitted of first degree murder under "make my day" law" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!