Claim of self-defense nets a murder charge

[Sam1911]

What am I suggesting? I thought it was clear, I said the only option he has that doesn't have potential of getting himself in trouble or killed, is to do nothing. I then made a point that it often doesn't matter what you do, and cited specific examples to support my point. So what are you getting at?

So doing nothing is BETTER than calling the police and asking them to handle it? So they'd come once before. Now they can come out again. Even if all they get him to do is shut up for the night, that's better than a shooting and jail time.

Well, considering his wife had already called the police prior, and the same thing was happening, how would that have helped!?!?!

Perhaps the police would have considered that one warning was obviously not sufficient and would have cited Mr. Noisy with a violation. Or even, depending on local law, arrested him and removed him for the evening. Or maybe they'd have done nothing but speak to him. Surely still better than shots fired, life ended, and freedom lost. No?

I don't see why you keep saying "the ONLY" choice is to do nothing.

I can't help you if you fail to see that what you are suggesting was already done, and didn't work.

And what happens with the second (or third) call? The police keep patting him on the head? No, generally it doesn't work that way. They have a certain amount of discretion in how much pressure they put on him. Rarely will one noise complaint end in an arrest. But repeated calls certainly can, and can bring charges.

The fact that (assuming the article is correct), that when he tried handle it like a man, by talking to the individual, was assaulted, and unfortunately it ended up deadly. What do you want me to say? Is it bad the guy was killed? Of course. But it was bad that the guy killed assaulted somebody. It was bad that this was a second incident that wasn't resolved the first time. It was bad there was any incident to begin with. There wasn't anything good about the situation.

Agreed!

But the phrase that he should "handle it like a man" is really simply a nod to the old "fisticuffs" ideal. Hey, be brave, man-up, stand up for yourself, don't tattle to "the man," don't be a sissy. Right? That's the sort of thinking that sends a man to face down someone he's already had trouble with and too often ends with one man dead and another in jail.

And it's exactly the line of thinking that informs the "mutual combatant" concept.

To suggest anything I said meant I thought what happened was a good thing is a blatant and intentional misrepresentation of what I said.

Well, if I did misinterpret your words, I apologize. I took from the "like a man" theme that you approved of his intents, if not results. I'm sorry.

 

[Bonesinium]

Maybe I should reword. "Handle it like an adult", which is what he tried to do. Unfortunately that did not work out well for him, and potentially, might not have been his fault, in the least. Of course we don't know the whole incident, but it is very possible, the guy with the music was trying to start a fight. I don't know, but I have certainly seen that before.

That is my point. It was a crappy situation, and crappier outcome, but it doesn't mean we should be restricted from doing things, and rely only on police! That seems to be what you are saying. And I reject that.

 

[Sam1911]

You know, I don't really feel that we should call the police at every turn. But this (and a few other things posted) are very good object lessons of the sort of instances where we have to be smarter than brave.

In this case, as you pointed out, the guy had already called the cops. What possible positive end could he have believed he'd accomplish? It just makes his decision to go armed look like a damning indicator that he knew things were likely to go south in a major way.

In the end, though, we have to balance what we have the freedom to do against our own goals of self-preservation. Like we've discussed in a variety of threads on topics as disparate as bar-hopping and casual 'relations' -- all the situational awareness and practice and training and guns and knives, etc, can be utterly negated by one really bad decision.

Like the unforuntate guy I mentioned before -- a student of Tom Givens, for heaven's sake! But something short-circuted his wisdom and he made a tragic choice.

 

[JRH6856]

Bottom line seems to be: Don't dance the Monkey Dance.

 

[ns66]

does this guy have some legal defense?

assume he had CCW permit, at 5am, he carried (he always does regardless) his gun and walk to the car, talk to the guy in the car to turn it down, maybe politely, not to start a fight
----- everything still legal, correct?

assume what he claimed is correct, the guy in the car charged at him (we don't know about the guy, could be crazy or a criminal), if he really felt his life was in danger, he fired a shot
----- this could be a justified SD, depends on the detail of what really happened at the confrontation, can go either way, correct?

 

[JRH6856]

depends on the detail of what really happened at the confrontation, can go either way, correct?

Yes, but...a DA usually doesn't file a charge he doesn't think he can prove. In this case, the charge is 2nd degree felony murder with a firearms enhancement. In law, assault is a threat of violence. It does not require physical contact(that is battery). With that charge, all the DA has to prove is that the defendant threatened the victim with violence (which is the felony that must be proved) and that the victim was killed in the course of the felony.

 

[Loosedhorse]

a DA usually doesn't file a charge he doesn't think he can prove.

I would agree with the "usually." Legally, all the DA usually needs to go to trial is a grand jury indictment, or a finding by a judge that he has a prima facie case. In a SD case, your own words are the prima facie case against you.

DAs are human. One may think he can prove a case he can't. One may "want to send a message", either to the shooter (I think WA is still the only state in which the gov has to pay the defense costs if the SD claim is successful; in other states, just going to trial is a huge "fine" against the shooter) or to the community (DAs are often elected).

With that charge, all the DA has to prove is that the defendant threatened the victim with violence

And the defendent will admit to that, if he is claiming SD.

Again, I don't have all the details. Judges and juries exist for a reason: some cases need to go to trial to determine what's what. Maybe this is one of them.

 

[Sam1911]

Agreed. It absolutely could be deemed self-defense. Given ONLY the facts we (think we) know, I'd surely be voting that way were I to sit on the jury.

I mean, a polite request from a neighbor should not invite assault. And an assault should be prevented by any reasonable means.

But we don't know all the facts, and none of US (or anyone like "us" who has ever studied self-defense law and principles, most likely) will sit on that jury.

 

[baylorattorney]

IMO Prosecuting attorneys DO file on cases they know they cannot win, but maybe plea bargain all the time. Especially gun cases resulting in a death, it's still simply popular to do so.


Waste not want not.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

While we are talking hypotheticals, sometimes calling the police, when a respectful person-to-person contact would have resolved the problem, leads to simmering resentment, then an out-right feud, then next thing you know, you have a grandson with a dog collar.

 

[Loosedhorse]

next thing you know, you have a grandson with a dog collar.

Photo, or it didn't happen.

It is interesting that the simple act of walking over to a neighbor risks being later viewed as provocation and mutual combat; whereas calling the police--a much bigger step--would never be legally viewed as escalation or harassing (so long as your statements to the police were true). In fact, it is probably evidence that you tried to avoid a confrontation...

Even if it eventually has the exact opposite effect.

 

[Sam1911]

True, at least on the surface. It depends, though, on the totality of circumstances.

New neighbor, or otherwise peacable relationship between you, and you walk over and say, "Hey, would you mind lowering the volume a little? We're trying to sleep..." probably no reasonable cause to consider that a provacation. And probably not likely to be necessary to call the cops (without some other indicators that approaching him/them would be unsafe).

But if things have gone badly before and the police have been called before, approaching him again (and let's face it... the fact that he went armed is going to be seen as indicative, even if he was regularly carrying anyway) instead of calling the police certainly could be.

The jury is going to try and decide if these were the actions of a "reasonable and prudent" person or someone with an axe to grind, looking for trouble. We can't see how it will be presented by both sides in court, or what other testimony will be given to establish mindset at the time.

 

[baylorattorney]

Terms like "totality of the circumstances" and "the reasonable and prudent person in same or similar circumstances" are legal terms of art. They are applied most often in civil cases claiming negligence for instance. In a criminal case the issues and standards and defenses are more narrowly defined. For instance a jury may view the act and state of mind of the accused in a vacuum. The DA need only prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did an "act" and his state of mind at the time of the act ( intentional, knowing, willful or wanton, reckless, negligent ). If the da fails to prove either of those two elements existed then the accused need do nothing except move for a directed verdict. Alternatively the accused may proffer its own evidence or defenses, in this case self defense, going to seek an explanation defense hence armed. A citizens right. Founded in case law and precedence...I might even forgo a jury altogether and just have a bench trial (judge is jury). We'd win of course. We win all our hypotheticals! Lol


Waste not want not.