Another excessive use of force

It should be, but here it is once more.:

 

That's exactly what I said, which you claimed not to understand.

I wasn't the one to first use the term. I merely commented on it.
These discussions teach us things, without a doubt.
Much of it though is just affirmation of things we learned long ago.

 

I'm all about avoiding a gun fight when possible, but backing out of this situation doesn't look like the best course of action. The victim was clearly blocked in, and I'm not sure he would have cleared that other vehicle from his path even if he slammed it in reverse. Plus, the attacker could still attack him during that time. The idea of getting out of the passenger side of the vehicle is *maybe* viable. But, you don't know how that car's interior was laid out, and that guy didn't look like a nimble and athletic individual to me.

Fighting with a gun was okay here, it's the 3rd and maybe 2nd shot that is going to be in question. The first shot was solid in my opinion, but last 1-2 shots were questionable.

 

Just IMO, the 2nd shot was defensible. And the guy was likely dead. So who cares about the third shot? (Well the courts of course) How about an autopsy to say he was dead on the 'defensible' second shot?

Yeah, not going to (didnt) happen. But why criminalize the guy for a third shot that most probably (from where I saw the first 2 shots placed) didnt make a difference? It's called fear for your life, adrenaline...if my life is absolutely in danger, am I supposed to stop and take the attacker's pulse? I believe in the American guideline of shooting till the threat is stopped. Not dead...at least that's not how I feel personally...I only want to stop the threat. But if the threat was truly real, it should be up to me to determine that continuing threat as it happens...that person took their life into their own hands when they tried to kill me.

 

If he didnt know about the cameras (which he probably didnt) he certainly knew he'd be held liable for any damage he did to the car or anyone else in it. It would have come down to: guy broke your window...you did major damage to his car. There would have been no proof of the actual events.

 

The assailant clearly broke the window. Even if the defender did back out with his car, it would be a delayed exit since he is blocked in and can still sustain injury.

Firing in self-defense until the threat is over is justified. But he went overboard, obviously.

 

Umm...he didn't know about the cameras when he pumped bullets in his chest either then...an insurance claim and ticket beats a murder charge. I can't imagine liability for a fender-bender is going to factor in to how someone handles a deadly force threat...but then you posted that so maybe people would choose a gunfight over a fender bender?

In any case, I think slamming the car in reverse as a tactic in this exact situation is certainly debatable. I still don't see how locking the car door wouldn't have been a much better 1st thing to do when someone has an impact weapon. Any comment about how he could still jab with the stick etc. goes double for just leaving the door open behind him. Heck, the guy could have jumped in after him and chocked him from behind with the club while he was fumbling around for the gun.

 

Yeah, pretty much what I think. Still had a point to make...you cant commit murder if someone is already dead. So it's kind of knee-jerk on the part of the justice system. A) it wasnt them in danger & B) it seems unlikely anyone actually considered if the attacker was already dead....which *just IMO* is a actual legal point.

And our society also abhors (and fears) people who to around attacking and threatening the lives of people. We all know it could be us next time.

 

I'm pretty sure the cameras didnt matter regarding him shooting to save his own life (if he knew or not). It's an acceptable act, to defend yourself. The imminent life threatening acts hadnt occured yet.

For myself, if I could back out..and I dont know that I would have there, could I tell if there was someone else in the car? Is destruction of property a legitimate defense for self-defense? I would have waited (if trapped) until it looked like he could get into the car (after getting through the window) and either shot from there or THEN, tried ramming the way out. I would not have exited the car, period.

 

Of course not...but that's what the expensive attorney you have to pay for will do....find the autopsy and see if the 1st or 2nd shots were lethal. If they were...there's no murder. THere might be other charges.

And it's not about dead when it comes to 'stopping' the threat. The guy was still on his feet (maybe dead on his feet). There was another man in the way...did the shooter 'know' that the threat was disabled? Or was he reaching for his iron bar again? He turned away...yes the shooter shot him in the back of the head...so how would he know if he was unconscious or disabled? Just things to introduce that may indeed have factored into the shooter's mind...I mean, if normal civilians are in legitimate 'fear for their lives,' they are likely functioning on overdrive, adreneline-dump....things are perceived differently, even time.

And there is no one else's word to take that challenges if the shooter was legitimately in fear for his life and didnt know if the threat was stopped. Not one person on a jury was there to *experience it*. They can only "judge it." And as you say...they sure will. Doesnt mean they are always correct.

 

After the second shot he was bent over. Dead? Maybe. It is hard to tell damage from 2 gunshots from a surveillance camera. More than likely just out of the fight. The third shot is probably what killed him and brought the murder charge.

Because you aren't getting the point that a broken window is a tactical weakness. Get in your car, roll the window down, lock the door. Can a bee still fly inside? Yes. Because the window is wide open. Same thing when a window is broken. Then you have the added danger of glass shards going after your face when a window is broken by a blunt force from the outside.

 

Sure. And if it's your life in danger...are you taking the chance he's not dead or disabled? As I wrote to Frank, he cant see the guy's face. Maybe he's reaching for that iron bar or another weapon.

It's definitely about what's 'not known,' but what you are willing to risk your life on.

 

The other guy was trying to stop him from defending his life also. Again...it's what risks are you willing to take with your life? And will the jury accept that you truly believed such risks existed?

Is that guy in the middle going to take some hits from an iron bar to save you? (If attacker was actually going for it again) I wouldnt bet on that.

Again, once you have tried to kill me...I am not giving you a SINGLE advantage to take up that attack again and I believe that I would be justified in that. You gave up your right to the benefit of the doubt when you tried to kill me.

Will a jury see it that way? Not necessarily.

 

It's not clear cut if an attacker is running away...there are many arguments that discuss the fact that, depending on circumstances, they could be running for a place of cover to resume an attack or get another weapon.

So that may be a legal opinion but it's not the only consideration.

And with a guy in between them and the attacker's back turned....the shooter didnt "know" anything about the attacker's status "for a fact."

 

Hey, if it was me in court...those would be things I would use for reasonable doubt. You are welcome to act in your own best interests. (btw, the jury also watches TV)

 

I have been there. You cover the threat until police arrive. You may be holding a gun over a corpse. Or someone unconscious. If they get up, shoot them again. Likely they won't. Making an execution shot to the back of the head, even under adrenaline, is implication for murder.