Hanzo581
Member
Exactly, which is what the jury will have to decide. Seven shots into someone, some in the back, all from what looks like 30 feet away......I don't like his chances, but we'll see.
Fear For Life
- Thread starter Good Ol' Boy
- Start date
- Status
Exactly, which is what the jury will have to decide. Seven shots into someone, some in the back, all from what looks like 30 feet away......I don't like his chances, but we'll see.
Last edited:
grampajack
AR Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 1,714
No, I'd say he's in need of nothing short of a minor miracle right now. It's an open and shut manslaughter case, and murder isn't a far stretch if they can convince the jury he shot out of anger as opposed to fear.
Do you really think that you would have been empaneled?
Have you considered where you would likely be sleeping?
That opinion has not been held in high regard in our system of jurisprudence for some centuries, and in other systems, for a lot longer.
That's hogwash.
First, there is no indication that these were "violent criminals", and second, that "social justice idea" predates the design of the first residential deadbolts by centuries. In fact, it predates the advent of hand-held firearms.
No one could know their intent.
One can only evaluate ability, opportunity, and the indication of jeopardy, and decide upon the potential for preclusion.
And that was his mistake.
.
Hanzo581
Member
Even if somehow he avoids conviction, surely he'd be destroyed in a civil suit from the parents anyway, no?
Much lower standard of proof, yes.
herrwalther
Member
- Joined
- May 1, 2013
- Messages
- 8,125
He is going to have a hard time proving he was afraid. First the victims were middle school kids. This would be a much different story if the thieves were 6'4, 300 pounds, and armed. Second, armed robbers have a determined goal to somehow render the clerk unable to act. They either walk casually around the store to look like normal patrons or they rush straight for the counter and demonstrate violence. These kid thieves did neither. They came in quickly but started to steal instead. The long counter lines to the left and right would give him plenty of time and visibility to see this had a low chance of turning hostile.
Even if he could do so, mere trepidation does not constitute justification.
That wold bring in an entirely different assessment of ability, opportunity, jeopardy, and preclusion.
Firing on people who are grabbing merchandise from shelves is a sure way to make a longer day of it.
grampajack
AR Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 1,714
You can't prosecute a jury for nullification, and you can't prosecute a juror for refusing to render a certain vote.
Yep, assuming he's worth suing.
The first few seconds of this looked exactly like a typical gangland style armed robbery. It's very typical for experienced gangbangers to dispense with all pretense and get right to the point as soon as they're through the door. Your scenario is more associated with the lone gunman. An organized gang job, on the other hand, they typically come fast and hard, just like those two did.
Last edited:
????
My first question was about voir dire.
Ny second was about your likely fate, should you do the same thing.
scaatylobo
Member
Terrible shoot,no doubt.
BUT if there were other factors involved,such as the store owner had been bum rushed in such a manner before and was ROBBED with or WITHOUT a gun = he would be likely justified by prior knowledge that others did not and do not have.
IF the law does not allow that justification,too bad and close up any and all shops in that jurisidiction until they stop attacking robbers.
I see that he might have been VERY concerned that they were about to rush him from both sides,so he took out the first one he got his sights on.
Unless YOU [ yes YOU ] have been the victim of a FAST & FURIOUS attack = you have no idea how violent and fast it can and will happen.
On another point,as sad as it was that he felt forced to use DPF, I bet the incidents of smash & grabs went WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY the hell down.
BUT if there were other factors involved,such as the store owner had been bum rushed in such a manner before and was ROBBED with or WITHOUT a gun = he would be likely justified by prior knowledge that others did not and do not have.
IF the law does not allow that justification,too bad and close up any and all shops in that jurisidiction until they stop attacking robbers.
I see that he might have been VERY concerned that they were about to rush him from both sides,so he took out the first one he got his sights on.
Unless YOU [ yes YOU ] have been the victim of a FAST & FURIOUS attack = you have no idea how violent and fast it can and will happen.
On another point,as sad as it was that he felt forced to use DPF, I bet the incidents of smash & grabs went WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY the hell down.
Deaf Smith
Member
No, it is what a reasonable person, under totality of the circumstances, would do. State of mind is a factor in that. The trauma of victimization most certainly can be shown it is what a reasonable person would do given the same background.
One just convinces the cops, or DA, or jury (if it comes to that), that one felt that same fear, same situation, as the one before.
Deaf
grampajack
AR Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 1,714
I've seen that work many, many times for cops, but not once have I ever seen it work for a civilian. Proving to the jury you felt in fear of your life despite the fact that you actually weren't might get murder taken down to manslaughter, but juries rarely forgive civilians for honest mistakes.
True!
It is not necessary to have actually been in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.
What is important is what the actor reasonably believed believed, and what others, knowing what the actor knew at the time, would have believed.
I can certainly see myself accessing a weapon immediately under the circumstances--but it's not a good idea to draw every time someone comes into a store. Bad for business.
I can see presenting the weapon, under the circumstances shown.
I can even see pointing the gun, even though what the target was doing was fiddling with merchandise on the shelf. But I do know that that could get me into trouble.
But I cannot envision myself pressing the trigger at that point on the basis of some conjecture about his possible intent.
It will be interesting to see whether both parties insist on taking this to trial rather than agreeing to conviction on lesser charges. The state has already said that they intend to go to trial.
Snyper
Member
Your first question ignored the fact he said "If I were on the jury".
No. It simply questioned the realism of the assumption.
The key in this case is that there were no visible weapons, no recorded threats noted, and the subjects made no hostile advances toward the defender vhad that made a beeline for him, he may have justified deadly force because of a disparity of force.
Snyper
Member
There is very little "realism" in most of these threads.
Everyone just goes into the "but what if" mode.
His premise was about what he would do if he were on the jury.
That's as "real" as most anything else as near as I can tell.
His fantasy courtroom is as valid as anyone else's fantasy isn't it?
Maybe, but this isn't about fantasy.
For the shooter, it is very real indeed, and if any of us are ever faced with a similar circumstance, it will become a serious matter.
It is probably worth realizing that people who have a strong interest in the defensive uses of firearms are not likely to be included among the ttiers of fact on a case such as this one.
Last edited:
grampajack
AR Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 1,714
scaatylobo
Member
I see EXACTLY your point.
And to further judge this man,I would NEED to know if he had been attacked in a prior manner such as this.
And if so,did the attacked "display" a weapon so he would know it was an " attack ".
The age of the attackers ,and SPEED might be a reason for the victim to have decided he was not able to even fight off 2 YOUNG attacker ,even if they were unarmed [ but for fists & feet ].
I see disparity of force as a real thing here.
In my state,it is a FELONY to attack any one over 65 IF your 10 years or more younger.
I like that as a defense in such a case.
When he drew is one thing. He is not being charged for that.
When he fired at the first one (47 seconds into the video the subject was stopped and was grabbing merchandise from the shelf next to which he was standing.
Irrelevant.
grampajack
AR Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 1,714
Have you ever been in a traffic accident? I'm not talking a little fender bender, but a real collision where both cars are totaled?
I've been in two (not my fault), and both times I found myself mashing down on the brake long after the car had come to a stop. It took me about five seconds to come back to higher brain function and realize what I was doing. When the limbic system takes over, your higher brain function exits stage left and every last ounce of cognitive awareness is focused on one thing. Mashing down that brake pedal as hard as you possibly can, to the point where your leg is sore the next day.
I was also in a rollover. I was driving on a dirt road in my 4Runner in the mountains and having a little too much fun on the switchbacks. I got going too fast down a grade that I had misjudged and hit a surprise switchback. The way the trees were it looked like a gentle bend in the road until you got up to it and realized it was a full on switchback. I hit a gravel wash and slid right off into a ditch, which flipped the car. The mountainside being steep, the car then rolled even though it was a fairly low speed. It actually landed on all four wheels, and when it came to rest I was still cranking on the steering wheel and hitting the gas trying to accelerate out of the wash, totally unaware for a few whole seconds that I was no longer on the trail. If the car hadn't landed in a ditch and gotten stuck there I would have actually driven off in it, down the mountainside, with the windshield completely broken and the roof caved in.
Long story short, I see very little possibility he was aware of the reality of the situation until long after it was over. Subtleties such as the person turning to grab something off the shelf probably wouldn't even register. His entire world at that moment was "I'm being attacked, put rounds on target." If he even registered that the kid had turned to grab something off the shelf, his deranged mind at that moment probably would have interpreted it as a threat, like the kid was going to grab a bong to use to smash him over the head with. When your limbic system gets triggered, you have all your fine motor skills and give every outward appearance of being fully in control of your faculties, but you have the analytical ability of a turnip.
jmorris
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 24,133
Good draw and splits if he got seven shots off before he went out of sight below the counter, when he hit the floor.
If he fumbled the draw a little there might have been more evidence or reason to not shoot. Like them stopping for loot vs continuing towards him.
Two folks come through a door like that and run behind both sides of the counter would certainly make me jump. How many times have we read about how useless firearms are when bad guys can cover 21 ft before we can draw.
Age doesn't matter at all, I assume that is brought up to pull some emotional heart string. Had they killed him it wouldn't have been the first time a teenager or group of teens killed someone.
However, I am sure it won't do him any good in court. Then again the prosecution has to find 12 people that will convict him the defense only has for find one that won't.
If he fumbled the draw a little there might have been more evidence or reason to not shoot. Like them stopping for loot vs continuing towards him.
Two folks come through a door like that and run behind both sides of the counter would certainly make me jump. How many times have we read about how useless firearms are when bad guys can cover 21 ft before we can draw.
Age doesn't matter at all, I assume that is brought up to pull some emotional heart string. Had they killed him it wouldn't have been the first time a teenager or group of teens killed someone.
However, I am sure it won't do him any good in court. Then again the prosecution has to find 12 people that will convict him the defense only has for find one that won't.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
