19-Year-Old, Gun, Macho Puffing Up, "Self-Defense," Dead Bystander

Status
Not open for further replies.

FCFC

Has Never Owned a Gun
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
649
19-year-old with a gun...and bad judgment...

He claims self-defense. It is quite unclear that it was self-defense. Looks like it was just "macho puffing up."

Not a good situation. Macho puffing up and a gun...

Mr. Ross never had a chance.



Wife describes Ross death

10 witnesses called at start of murder trial

August 20, 2008

By TAVIA D. GREEN
The Leaf-Chronicle

Rebecca Ross took the stand Tuesday in the trial of Jeremy A. Jarvis, the 20-year-old man accused in the shooting death of her husband, retired Northwest Coach Willard Ross.

She choked up as she described June 25, 2007, when her husband was shot in the mouth while he stood in the tent of their family-owned fireworks tent.

Ross said she stood two feet from her husband and watched as the man she'd been married to for 41 years jerked back and fell forward as a bullet struck him.

"When I looked at him his head went back ... and the blood gushed out of his mouth," she said. "I reached for him so he wouldn't hit the ground so hard."

Ross said she went to get her cell phone and told herself to be calm as she hysterically talked to the 911 operator.

Ross was one of the ten witnesses called to testify Tuesday by Assistant District Attorneys Steve Garrett and Chris Clark.

Jarvis, along with Jovan Preche Dixon, is charged with attempted first-degree murder, felony murder, first-degree murder, reckless endangerment and unlawful carrying and possession of a firearm.

Dixon is being tried separately, in a trial slated to begin Nov. 17.

Jarvis' attorney, Tommy Overton, has subpoenaed Dixon to testify in Jarvis' trial. However, Dixon's attorney, Michael Sneed, said Tuesday he has advised his client to plead the Fifth Amendment if called to testify.

Opening statements

A jury of 14 Robertson County jurors was selected Monday in Springfield, and is being sequestered during the trial.

Assistant District Attorney Chris Clark made opening statements Tuesday and described in detail how on June 25, 2007, "time stood still and a nightmare began for Rebecca Ross."

Jarvis was a backseat passenger in the car, Clark said. A woman named Evelyn Harris — whose husband, Charles Mitchell, was the driver of the SUV — got out and went into Wal-Mart to shop, Clark said.

Clark said Dixon had been shopping in the store and left as Harris was going on. When Dixon came out the store he caught Harris' eyes and gave her a second look.

That's when words, mean looks and scoldings were exchanged, Clark said, involving Dixon, Jarvis and Jarvis' three companions.

"There was macho puffing up," Clark said. "That's when Dixon takes out a 9 millimeter and fires toward the car."

Jarvis ran behind the SUV to take refuge, Clark said.

"After Dixon starts firing, Jarvis decides to arm himself, then he goes on the offensive. And as the vehicle goes in front of the fireworks tents, he fires five times across the parking lot. Tragically, the bullet entered the tent and struck Mr. Ross," Clark said.

Clark said Jarvis fired in retaliation — not in self defense — and urged the jury to return a guilty verdict for the first-degree murder of Ross.

In defending his client, Overton said it was Dixon's actions that led to Ross' death.

"The proof will show Jeremy Jarvis made some bad decisions on that day ... like any 19-year-old would," Overton said. "But that doesn't mean he is a murderer."

Overton said Jarvis and his companions went to Wal-Mart to purchase food for a cookout, not to have combat or kill Ross.

He said Jarvis did not know Ross or Dixon.

When Harris went in the store, Dixon looked at her behind and Jarvis rolled down the window to tell Dixon she was already taken, Overton said.

Overton said Dixon took it to the next level when he veered his vehicle, a blue Pontiac, toward the men and shot at them.

When Jarvis fired back, Overton said it was in self-defense, fearing for his life and his friends' lives.

Jurors heard Tuesday from several witnesses to the shooting.

William Coleman, 21, a passenger with Jarvis in the SUV, testified that Dixon shot first. He said he did not see Jarvis fire shots, but heard the shots and a woman screaming.

"You could tell something happened out of the ordinary ... the woman was screaming," Coleman said. "You could hear death in her voice."

Garrett questioned Coleman about seeing Jarvis put a gun in his pocket.

Coleman said he saw something in Jarvis' pocket but could not say it was gun.

He said everyone panicked and went to a nearby grocery store parking lot, where a friend picked them up. "We were scared," Coleman said. "We panicked."

Coleman later said they didn't know someone had been hurt, and that he and Jarvis were in fear of their lives while Dixon fired at the Eyewitness Stephanie Wendland said she did not see the black SUV move after the shooting for about four or five minutes.

"I don't think they knew they hurt somebody," she said.

Prosecutors will continue to present evidence today when court resumes.

http://www.theleafchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080820/CRIME/808200356
 
Tragic. True that it's not clear that is was self-defense, but it's also not clear that it wasN'T self-defense. If some criminal starts shooting at me, temporarily stops, but looks like he's staying at the scene and not leaving (perhaps reloading), then I think attempting to take him out, to prevent him from resuming a murderous rampage is definitely self-defense. That may not be exactly what happened here, but just sayin...
 
Not enough info here to form an opinion. At this point, until other witnesses are heard, it's he said, she said. Tragic nonetheless.
 
You are responsible for each shot. When you shoot an innocent - you should pay the price.
 
Ross' murder may not have been intentional, but Jarvis is still responsible and guilty. The reality is that you are responsible for every round that leaves your weapon. If I fire into a crowd w/ buckshot because I'm taking rounds from 1 person, I'm going to be in a LOT of trouble if anyone else is hit--lethal or not. While he may have been justified if he'd only struck Dixon, his legal justification ended as soon as he started shooting indiscriminately in a public area (especially firing across a parking lot from a moving vehicle).

"The proof will show Jeremy Jarvis made some bad decisions on that day ... like any 19-year-old would," Overton said. "But that doesn't mean he is a murderer."
When your reckless behavior results in the unlawful death of an innocent, you are a murderer regardless of your intent. People are punished for bad decisions all the time, and this is absolutely one of those times. Tragic.
 
Not enough info here to form an opinion
not sure about that, a 19 year old with a pistol=criminal offense in most places I know of. Where did this happen? Is there anywhere that a 19 year old can legaly carry a pistol?
 
Dixon shoots first, Jarvis fires back. What isn't self defense about that?

As for Mr. Ross whose death is tragic:
In warfare bystanders who are killed are called collateral damage. Why should the standard be any different for us mere citizens when faced with a life or death situation. The limitations that lead to collateral damage are the same. You only have a split second to make a choice and you have only a tiny amount of information to base that choice on.

Ross' murder may not have been intentional, but Jarvis is still responsible and guilty. The reality is that you are responsible for every round that leaves your weapon.
Not necessarily disagreeing about some level of responsibility, but based on your statement I assume you would like to see charges filed against every US soldier whose shots fired have led to civilian casualties, right?
 
In warfare bystanders who are killed are called collateral damage. Why should the standard be any different for us mere citizens when faced with a life or death situation
because we are held to a higher standard to protect ourselves and others. Tho protect ourselves and its ok to shoot others in the process.
 
Dixon shoots first, Jarvis fires back. What isn't self defense about that?

It sounds as if he retreated to a place of safety initially.

THEN decided to arm himself and return to combat.

That's no longer self defense.

In warfare bystanders who are killed are called collateral damage. Why should the standard be any different for us mere citizens when faced with a life or death situation.

You're serious?

Not necessarily disagreeing about some level of responsibility, but based on your statement I assume you would like to see charges filed against every US soldier whose shots fired have led to civilian casualties, right?

What planet are you people living on?

Soldiers and police officers have a legal DUTY to act. The rest of us do NOT. You are not compelled by law to return fire if you are shot at or required to attempt to apprehend the ones doing the shooting.

You have the RIGHT to defend yourself but that right does not allow you to kill an innocent. HE has the right not to be shot by someone who can't hit what they are aiming at.

As for the soldiers, there are cases where soldiers HAVE had charges filed against them for just that, when they acted in a manner that was outside of what their legal duty compelled them to do. Happens often in fact.
 
Two punks in a pi$$'n match over a leering glance, exchange shots to 'prove their point'. This ain't a robbery or an assault or any felony (I'm aware of) right up to the point they take aim and fire. Then it's manslaughter and both are at fault. With aggravating circumstances they should be jailed for a long time. This doesn't rise to a level where Highroaders should even be concerned; much less discuss it.
 
It sounds as if he retreated to a place of safety initially.

THEN decided to arm himself and return to combat.

That's no longer self defense.
I agree if thats how it happened. Good point!

Still cant beleive no one has picked up on ONE OF THE SHOOTERS WAS 19!
 
If I shoot a man who's shooting at me, self defense. If I shoot a man who's minding his own business, it's manslaughter in the least. Even if it was an accident (Which I'm sure it was)

Murder may not be the proper terminology but an innocent man is dead because a 19 year old acquired a handgun (Legally should be 21) and used it irresponsibly.

There really is nothing good about this story at all. The glass is half full... of HCl.
 
What planet are you people living on?

Soldiers and police officers have a legal DUTY to act. The rest of us do NOT. You are not compelled by law to return fire if you are shot at. You have the RIGHT to defend yourself but that right does not allow you to kill an innocent. HE has the right not to be shot by someone who can't hit what they are aiming at.

So, having a legal duty trumps morality? Interesting perspective.

Do soldiers and police return fire because of a legal duty? hmmm....I don't think so. It is because they are trying avoid the same fate that awaits a mere citizen in a fire fight who chooses not to return fire.

Also, could you show me where police officers and soldiers are legally bound to discharge their firearms when faced with a life or death situation. If this is true, it would make surrender in warfare illegal.
 
This doesn't rise to a level where Highroaders should even be concerned; much less discuss it.

I think it does because the blame will be placed on the guns and not the idiots pulling the triggers. How to redirect that blame to the correct place is a valid discussion.

Also, possesion of a handgun by some one under 21 may not be illegal depending on your jurisdiction.
 
Murder may not be the proper terminology but an innocent man is dead because a 19 year old acquired a handgun (Legally should be 21) and used it irresponsibly.

Well that's why it is important to determine if it was self defense or not.

If it WAS self defense then it's probably manslaughter.

If it was NOT self defense then it's likely Felony Murder if they have that in the state, which most seem to now.
 
So, having a legal duty trumps morality? Interesting perspective.

Sure. War is immoral on the face of it. That's a shocker? But sometimes necessary.

That's why the winning side in a war gets to charge the losers with war crimes. Welcome to reality.

Also, could you show me where police officers and soldiers are legally bound to discharge their firearms when faced with a life or death situation. If this is true, it would make surrender in warfare illegal.

No, police officers have a duty to attempt to stop criminals. If they need to use their weapons to do that there will be an investigation, but that doesn't mean they did not have a duty to act.

As for soldiers you need to look into the UCMJ. You might be surprised to learn that surrendering in warfare IS illegal in some cases.

This isn't rocket science.
 
"The proof will show Jeremy Jarvis made some bad decisions on that day ... like any 19-year-old would," Overton said. "But that doesn't mean he is a murderer."
Yes, it does.

Dixon shoots first, Jarvis fires back. What isn't self defense about that?
What! Are you serious? Ross is dead, Jarvis shot him, and Ross isn't even involved.

I'd like to hear the "gun" facts. Legally owned? I doubt it. Gang style shoot out? Yep.
I know, I know, the shooter was planning on college, sure. Any priors? Wanna bet?

The limitations that lead to collateral damage are the same. You only have a split second to make a choice and you have only a tiny amount of information to base that choice on.
This comment is so lame it doesn't deserve a response.

If I shoot a man who's shooting at me, self defense. If I shoot a man who's minding his own business, it's manslaughter in the least. Even if it was an accident (Which I'm sure it was)
Getting hit by a falling chunk of ice is an accident. Getting shot is never an accident. Someone made the decision to shoot in Ross's direction and he is responsible for where that bullet goes. The dumb a** shooter needs to go away forever. Period. And take his gang bang bro's with him. When is society going to say "enough is enough"?
 
There is no possible way this meets the gold standard for self-defense, and I hope they throw away the key when they lock them both up.

Almost anywhere you go, you must not be the aggressor in the build-up to shoot. From the story, both parties had ample time to back down, go their separate ways, and thus defuse the situation. Simply because they had to "represent", an innocent man is dead. I don't know if it qualifies as murder, but the highest level of manslaughter at the least.

This is all assuming he was carrying legally, which he wasn't.
 
while not condoning the actions of the 19 yr old, i believe he will not be convicted of 1st degree murder.

1st degree murder is defined as the killing of someone with malice and aforethought.

there may have been malicious intent (shooting at the person who shot at him) but definitely no aforethought (he didnt leave the house with the sole purpose of killing someone)

he should, however, be convicted of a lesser crime... probably manslaughter
 
In warfare bystanders who are killed are called collateral damage. Why should the standard be any different for us mere citizens when faced with a life or death situation.

That is the most patently idiotic thing I've read on the internet in the last month.

Frankly, if this is how you think, I really have to question whether you possess either the mental acumen or the proper understanding of personal responsibility to even be able to own a firearm, much less carry one.
 
TexasRifleman said:
Self defense or not you are still responsible for every bullet that leaves your gun.
GEM said:
You are responsible for each shot.
Scoutsout2645 said:
The reality is that you are responsible for every round that leaves your weapon.
+1 +1 +1

Would could be more basic than this responsibility?
 


California's definition of first degree murder may not agree with Tennessee's definition. In Texas, that would be capitol murder and this shooting, while henious, don't fit that definition either, nor the lesser charge of murder. Manslaughter does though, but remember the trial is in Tennessee, not California or Texas.

+1, Justin re:judgement and responcibillity
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top