PlayboyPenguin
member
Lupinus,
Well said....
Well said....
PlayboyPenguin said: Guy 1 is sitting in a diner. . . .
Show me a case where guy 1 is charged with a crime.
Well, lets hear it? Site a case with the previously stated circumstances where a person defending themselves was convicted of a crime. I am open to hear it.
2. State of North Carolina v. Eddie Purnell Ammons, Jr, Defendant. A man attacked and struck repeatedly with a weapon – in this case a stick, fights back and fatally stabs his attacker. The jury felt he had retreated to a position of safety in a vehicle and the self defense was not justified.
Ammons
History:
On 9 June 2002, defendant pawned a VCR to Roher for ten dollars, and agreed to pay thirty dollars to redeem the device. A dispute arose over the amount needed to redeem the VCR. On 17 June 2002, Roher asked defendant to come to his house to redeem the VCR. On 18 June 2002, defendant, driven by his uncle, Gerald Locklear (“Locklear”), arrived at Roher's house in a Ford Thunderbird whose passenger side window was broken and could not be rolled up.
The evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the State, tends to show that defendant came armed with a sharpened knife to confront Roher in his home over the disputed VCR, and that the confrontation led to a fight between the two men. Roher followed defendant as he left his home and picked up a bed slat which he swung at defendant, hitting defendant four times on the arm. Defendant attempted to block the swings with his arm, but was struck in the neck by one of the blows. Defendant produced a knife, told Roher to stop hitting him, to keep the VCR, and not to come to his house.
Defendant then got into the passenger side of the automobile and asked Locklear to start the engine. Roher continued to strike at the vehicle and defendant as the car backed down the driveway. Upon reaching the road, the vehicle's engine cut off. As Locklear attempted to restart the car, Roher continued to swing the slat at the vehicle. Defendant produced the lock blade knife, reached outside the window, and stabbed Roher through the heart while his uncle restarted the engine. The car then pulled away and defendant returned home with Locklear.
Finding: Manslaughter.
The jury felt his life was no longer in danger. Although he had retreated to a car which had a broken window which had stalled in the attempt to leave, they felt he was in a position of safety from death.
Defendant was determined to not be in grave danger in a stalled car, even though he was being attacked, and the jurors pondered why he prepared for a confrontation by arming himself.
Eleven Mike said: Can anyone explain this to me? Case 2 from above . . .
There was sufficient evidence negating a second-degree murder defendant's claim of self-defense where the jury could find that the threat was no longer imminent when defendant acted, and that he lacked a reasonable belief in the threat of serious bodily injury. . . . . . In light of this evidence, a jury could find that defendant lacked a reasonable belief in the threat of serious bodily injury or death at the time he stabbed Roher, as defendant had reached the relative safety of the car and such a threat was no longer imminent. Further evidence negating the reasonableness of defendant's belief in the need to kill is found in his hasty departure from the scene. See State v. Watson, 338 N.C. 168, 181, 449 S.E.2d 694, 702 (1994) (overruled on other grounds, State v. Richardson, 341 N.C. 585, 461 S.E.2d 724 (1995)) (holding such flight would permit a jury to infer defendant harbored a sense of guilt inconsistent with a killing justified on the basis of self-defense). As sufficient evidence of the elements of second degree murder and evidence negating defendant's claim of self- defense were presented, the trial court correctly denied defendant's motion to dismiss the charge of second degree murder and all lesser-included offenses at the close of all the evidence, and the case was properly submitted to the jury for determination of the disputed factual issues.
PlayboyPenguin said: This being said I will not flee every time I think something might go south. I just will not do it. I will also never allow myself or a loved one to be physically violated without response.
This is what I'm talking about. Would you not agree that the jury was completely wrong in this? How many times does someone have to smack a person with a board, following him even when he is trying to get away, before it looks like that person means business? How can they fail to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt, considering he was being attacked with a weapon?even in a stalled car with no protection of a window (it was broken), Ammons claim to self defense lacked justification
I'd say right outside the window and still swinging is imminent.such a threat was no longer imminent
Carrying a knife is not necessarily arming oneself. Most knives are tools. If he was arming himself, no evidence is given to indicate malicious intent. Did the jury have additional evidence that he was arming himself in order to attack, rather than for his own defense? If not, arming oneself should not prejudice one's case.the jurors pondered why he prepared for a confrontation by arming himself.
This is stupid. Being prepared in case something happens doesn't mean you look for it, invite it, or want it. I carry a rubber too, that doesn't mean I plan on getting laid or going to a motel with a woman that looks less then fresh or that every woman I meet I try and get into bed.the jurors pondered why he prepared for a confrontation by arming himself.
strike one - eating at waffle house
strike two - going to a parking lot to settle an argument while packing
strike three - missing your target
i'm predicting he's going to get what he deserves and deserve what he gets
This is stupid. Being prepared in case something happens doesn't mean you look for it, invite it, or want it. I carry a rubber too, that doesn't mean I plan on getting laid or going to a motel with a woman that looks less then fresh or that every woman I meet I try and get into bed.
If you saw some of the things round here calling themselves women you wouldnt ask that questionC'mon, you trying to make us believe you don't try to get every woman you meet into bed????
Eleven Mike said: Would you not agree that the jury was completely wrong in this? How many times does someone have to smack a person with a board, following him even when he is trying to get away, before it looks like that person means business? How can they fail to give the defendant the benefit of the doubt, considering he was being attacked with a weapon?
C96 said: The legal system only occasionally dispenses justice.