Claim of self-defense nets a murder charge

[bikemutt]

Approach someone to tell them to turn down their stereo, or not to loiter, or curb their dog, or to keep down their speed in your neighborhood -- or pretty much anything that might be confrontational, and you are absolutely putting your life, freedom, and fortune on the line.

I agree Sam1911, but I'd like to add this is true whether you are armed or not.

If we are going to assume worst case which is someone dies, if you are unarmed it may well be you, if you are armed it may well be the other guy. Being armed is simply a plan that you won't be the guy who no longer needs oxygen, you may not see daylight either.

In other words, avoid the avoidable.

 

[JRH6856]

If we are going to assume worst case which is someone dies, if you are unarmed it may well be you, if you are armed it may well be the other guy. Being armed is simply a plan that you won't be the guy who no longer needs oxygen, you may not see daylight either.

In other words, avoid the avoidable.

Or in the words of Johnny Cash:
"Don't take your guns to town, son. Leave your guns at home..."

 

[BSA1]

I can foresee this young mans future. As he gets ready to go to trial he is going to find out that lawyers are expensive. Usually the better the lawyer the more expensive they are. His options will be a public defender or using up all of their savings, maybe taking a second mortgage, borrowing money from family and friends.

After being found guilty and sentenced to a long prison spell his defense attorney will tell him not to worry cause they will get his conviction overturned on appeal.

Mr. Hot-Head goes to prison telling staff and inmates alike that he is a innocent man. The only thing is nobody cares.

After he gets in prison he discovers that his attorney forgot to tell him that appeals cost money. And he used up all of money in the first trial. So he has to turn to a legal aide society with inexperienced lawyers.

His wife pledges that she will always stay with him and do everything she can for him. At first she visits him every week and sends him money so he can buy items in the prison canteen. After a while the weekly drive to the prison becomes more and more difficult especially if she has young children. Being a single mom isn't easy with loss of income, fatigue from raising kids, paying bills and working a job. While he sits in prison life on the outside moves on and eventually the visits stop along with a divorce.

He will lose contact with his kids and his wife will probably remarry. Mom and Dad and other relatives will die while he is in prison. When he finally gets out his job skills are out of date and he will discover the whole world has passed him by.

 

[45bthompson]

That's sad. I bet he gets off.

 

[ns66]

yeah you destroy another man's life, expect your life get destroyed too, that's only fair
it's sad too many people didn't fully realize that until it's too late

 

[baylorattorney]

Reminds me of my favorite case law exception to the prohibition for carrying a sidearm without ccl to a scene. I'm going to seek an explanation, therefore I am armed to defend myself. This is Texas case law.

 

[baylorattorney]

Here is the cite and first few paragraphs....



September 14, 1983

MICHAEL JOSEPH BANKS, APPELLANT
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

Petition for Discretionary Review from the Court of Appeals, Fourteenth Supreme Judicial District of Texas [Harris County].

En Banc. Clinton, J.

None

CLINTON, Judge.

Opinion CONCURRING IN DENIAL OF STATE'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION FOR REHEARING

Almost two years after the effective date of the present penal code, Young v. State, 530 S.W.2d 120 (Tex.Cr.App. 1975) was unanimously decided by the Court. The State Prosecuting Attorney presented the contention that "since the Legislature saw fit to include the law on provoking the difficulty but failed to include any provision on the right of an actor (accused) to arm himself and seek an explanation, such right no longer exists," id., at 123. Rejecting it, the Court did not agree that either the provisions or the legislative history indicate that such was the intention of the Legislature. Accordingly, the Court concluded:

"We decline to overrule the rule the State seeks to abolish which has long been part of the case or decisional law of this State... [citations omitted] and see no conflict of such rule with the new Penal Code." Ibid.

A mere reiteration of the same contention eight years later is not enough to justify one who was not a member of the Court then to say now that Young v. State, supra, was wrongly decided. Absent new evidence of legislative purpose compelling a different conclusion, the doctrine of stare decisis obliges a successor Judge to adhere to findings and holdings of his predecessors.

The District Attorney is content to embrace the dissenting opinion on original submission and to ask rhetorically, "Are we a society governed by law or by the fastest gun?" So long as the law recognizes a general principal of necessity justifying conduct that would otherwise be criminal - a traditional common law defense*fn1 - the answer may be "both." See, e.g., Armstrong v. State, 653 S.W.2d 810 (Tex.Cr.App. 1983).

The State Prosecuting Attorney also commends the dissenting opinion, as well as condemning the requested instruction in question. He contends the instruction is: tantamount to judicial approval of a "right" to violate a criminal statute of this State, i.e., V.T.C.A. Penal Code, ? 46.02;*fn2 "was never logical;" and is "even more illogical under the new Penal Code." In essence his position is that "the so-called 'right' in question was derived from a frontier tradition of freedom to bear arms..." (emphasis in original), and that it is now passe.

One of the most succinct statements of the matter is found is Shannon v. State, 35 Tex. Crim. 2, 28 S.W. 687 (1894):

"The fact that one with a grievance arms himself, and seeks an interview with the man who wrongs him, is not necessarily a provocation, nor does it place the injured party necessarily in the wrong. He must also, as said by Judge Hurt in Cartwright's Case, 14 Tex.App. 502, 'willingly and knowingly use language or do acts reasonably calculated to lead to an affray or deadly conflict; and, unless the acts are clearly calculated or intended to have such an effect, the right of self-defense is not compromitted [sic], even though the party armed himself and went there for the purpose of a difficulty. White's Case, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 154, 164, 3 S.W. 710 [1887]." Id., S.W. at 688.

 

[Bobson]

He is being charged with 2nd degree felony murder, which if the article is correct, is a lesser charge than 2nd degree murder, but carries the same sentence. What the? Why even bother having a 2nd degree murder charge

Second-degree murder (sometimes referred to as a "crime of passion" - such as walking in on a cheating spouse and reacting by murdering one or the other, or both) does have a lesser sentence than first-degree murder (premeditated murder, such as plotting to kill someone you dislike, and following through with it).

First degree murder typically (there are exceptions, of course) results in the death penalty or life in prison without parole, while second-degree is generally more along the lines of 25-35 years, with the possibility of parole after X years, plus the possibility to earn "good time." Again, there are exceptions, but for the mostpart, second-degree murder has a much lighter sentence.

 

[JRH6856]

The three levels of homicide confusingly referred to in this thread are 1st Degree Murder, 2nd Degree Murder and 2nd Degree Felony Murder. Without going into detail, the main distinctions are what must be proved by the prosecution to get a conviction.

1st degre Murder requires proving both intent and premeditation.

2nd degree murder required proving intent.

2nd degree felony murder requires proving some other felony, in the course of which, the victim was killed. It not necessary to prove intent.

It is easier to prove that the defendent shot the victim than it is to prove that he intended to kill the victim. It is not even necessary to prove he intended to shoot the victim if another felony can be proved in connection with the homicide.

 

[leadcounsel]

Look at it from a different perspective:

Let's say the shooter was not a civilian, but a police officer. I think the PO would be within his rights.

Now, if you agree that the civilian has EVERY right to 1) be carrying a gun and 2) ask the deceased to turn down the loud music being played at an unreasonable time of morning - then I think the verdict should be an acquital.

EVEN so, the guy will spend a fortune on his defense and the best result is an acquital.

 

[JRH6856]

EVEN so, the guy will spend a fortune on his defense and the best result is an acquital.

Yeah. If you have to shoot a BG, you are probably better off if he is a BAD Guy and not just a BIG Guy.

 

[Sam1911]

Look at it from a different perspective:

Let's say the shooter was not a civilian, but a police officer. I think the PO would be within his rights.

A police officer is granted powers and duties beyond those of an average citizen. He is also legally shielded against most lawsuits as long as he's performing his duties and acting within the guidelines of his department's policies.

The officer wears the uniform and badge of office that lets the person s/he is dealing with know clearly where they stand with regard to the law. The officer is a disinterested third party who can be expected to be impartial, more or less fair, and who cannot be bluffed, bullied, or beaten, as s/he is only the tip of an overwhelming concentration of force.

In other words, we the citizens hire our police officers and give them heightened abilities and powers in order that we DON'T have to take the law into our own hands in these cases.

In this situation, Mr. Neighbor comes over to make a (assumed) lawful request regarding a noise complaint. A scuffle breaks out and Mr. Neighbor shoots the Mr. Noisy. That's a HUGE disaster for everyone involved, regardless of who is really "to blame."

If Mr. Neighbor had called the police to handle this, Mr. Noisy would have almost certainly not threatened the responding officer. And if he had, the officer would probably have responded with less-lethal force and carted off Mr. Noisy to sleep off his beer muscles and Mr. Noisy would live to regret that action. And, if worst came to worst and Mr. Noisy pressed a lethal attack -- and the officer did end up shooting him after all -- the officer would have some reports to file, probably a bit of time off, and would have to sit through a few days in court while his department's lawyers fought with the family of the deceased.

A FAR better outcome, either way.

Now, if you agree that the civilian has EVERY right to 1) be carrying a gun and 2) ask the deceased to turn down the loud music being played at an unreasonable time of morning - then I think the verdict should be an acquital.

"Just because you are "right" doesn't mean your life won't be ruined...or ended. " Just because you had the right to take a certain action, nothing shields you from severe, even lethal, consequences of that action. You have the RIGHT to walk up to a group of guys and tell them to leave you alone, but if that starts a fight and you end up killing someone, you will probably not be considered blameless.

EVEN so, the guy will spend a fortune on his defense and the best result is an acquital.

Yup.

 

[Bonesinium]

I agree Sam1911, but I'd like to add this is true whether you are armed or not.

If we are going to assume worst case which is someone dies, if you are unarmed it may well be you, if you are armed it may well be the other guy. Being armed is simply a plan that you won't be the guy who no longer needs oxygen, you may not see daylight either.

In other words, avoid the avoidable.

Exactly.

What I am gathering is

1) if you have a complaint with somebody, call the police
2) if that doesn't work do not ever confront them because
a)if you are armed, and it gets physical, you could go to jail
b)if you are not armed, and it gets physical, you could end up dead
3)if the police confront them, and it gets physical, they can use deadly force and be okay, but a mere citizen is a criminal

I'd like to present the incident in this thread to support scenario 1 (they had called the police for the same reason previously), and scenario 2a (it didn't work, and he might end in jail). I'd like to cite the case in Philadelphia to support 2b (the man making the complaint was killed, see link below). And lastly I'd like to cite Sam1911 to support scenario 3 (using quote below).

To me, it sounds like the only course of action you can take...is to do nothing. Ever. Isn't that great...

Philadelphia incident referred to above.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/02/15/10416201-man-killed-in-dog-poop-dispute-cops

Sam1911 quote

A police officer is granted powers and duties beyond those of an average citizen. He is also legally shielded against most lawsuits as long as he's performing his duties and acting within the guidelines of his department's policies.

Because police have extra rights...yep, you heard it. As long as they are following "policy", they are okay. No matter of the law (which usually has separate statues giving police more rights anyways, but I digress.)

 

[baylorattorney]

I can't carry a cop.

 

[Loosedhorse]

I would say we need more facts.

And that is exactly what detectives are employed to find, and juries are charged to determine.

a)if you are armed, and it gets physical, you could go to jail

Absolutely right. We should all remember that, always.

b)if you are not armed, and it gets physical, you could end up dead

Yes. Or in jail. And you can still end up dead even if you're armed.

Guess that about covers it--except we left out the options "crippled for life" and "financially ruined."

 

[Sam1911]

What I am gathering is

1) if you have a complaint with somebody, call the police
2) if that doesn't work do not ever confront them because
a)if you are armed, and it gets physical, you could go to jail
b)if you are not armed, and it gets physical, you could end up dead
3)if the police confront them, and it gets physical, they can use deadly force and be okay, but a mere citizen is a criminal

Not exactly in No. 3 there. The police do not have more rights to kill someone than you do. They do, however, have several factors in their favor that you do not.

1) They are acting within their official duties. They MUST respond to the call, if directed to, and have a duty to enforce the law and keep the peace. That's their job. So a police officer cannot be considered a "mutual combatant" - i.e. someone out looking for a fight. He has a duty to be there and the authority to give various lawful orders. Someone responding in a hostile way to his presence and instructions is placing himself directly in opposition to the law, and to a uniformed officer acting in his official capacity.

2) They have dash-cams, recorders, and other sworn officers present (there's rarely only one any more) to support their account of what happened.

3) They are indemnified against personal liability as long as they were acting in an official capacity and following department guidelines. They can still get hauled into court, but it isn't on their own dime and they don't personally stand to lose everything if the court decides the department's policies were in error.

[EDIT TO ADD: I misspoke a little -- an officer may under very specific circumstances use lethal force on someone in the course of enforcing the law. The circumstances where that differs from what an un-sworn citizen could do are few.]

To me, it sounds like the only course of action you can take...is to do nothing. Ever. Isn't that great...

I don't follow that, at all. The reason we -- the people -- hire police officers is to handle situations like this. To keep the peace, as a representative of society as a whole, so things don't become personal man-to-man conflicts.

A police officer is not representing his own interests when he approaches Mr. Noisy. He's enforcing the laws he's been hired and sworn to uphold. He has no "dog in the fight." If Mr. Noisy doesn't like it, his beef is not with the officer (really) but with the laws of the jurisdiction where he lives. If he chooses to fight about it, he's not fighting A MAN, but the legal system he's flouting.

Philadelphia incident referred to above.

Again, an instance where if either man had a beef with the other and it had passed beyond police discussion, they should have contended via the legal system rather than coming to a tragic, violent, and stupid end. Not much the police can do if they get called to the scene only to mop up the blood.

A police officer is granted powers and duties beyond those of an average citizen. He is also legally shielded against most lawsuits as long as he's performing his duties and acting within the guidelines of his department's policies.

Because police have extra rights... yep, you heard it. As long as they are following "policy", they are okay. No matter of the law (which usually has separate statues giving police more rights anyways, but I digress.)

Uh...seriously? Are you just getting this? OF COURSE police officers are given powers that regular citizens are not! They are hired to do jobs folks cannot and should not try to do on their own. And what in the world do you mean, "No matter of the law?" That doesn't make sense. Their departmental policies are written BASED on the laws they are hired to enforce. They are sworn to represent and enforce the laws we, as a people, have enacted to keep our society peaceful and just.

If departmental policy is in contradiction to the law, you end up with some of the lawsuits like VCDL and some folks in OH, PA (and elsewhere) have been pursuing, where the courts can be used to force departments to bring their policies in line with the law.

When was the last time you set up to run radar on your street? How many tickets did you write? You pull over many drunk drivers yourself? Do you take many drug dealers off the street, personally? Investigate many crimes? Do you want to have those responsibilities thrust on you? (Want to pay your own court fees after every single 'citizen's arrest?') Do you want Eddie down the street trying to do so in your neighborhood?

Now, I tend to think that things have gone a bit too far in what powers and techniques we grant to law enforcement these days, but there is NO question that officers of the law are -- and must be -- granted a certain amount of authority and protection in order to do the job we ask them to do.

 

[Bonesinium]

Not exactly in No. 3 there. The police do not have more rights to kill someone than you do. They do, however, have several factors in their favor that you do not.

Indeed they do. What are these 'extra factors in their favor'? Sounds like some other word...

1) So a police officer cannot be considered a "mutual combatant" - i.e. someone out looking for a fight. He has a duty to be there and the authority to give various lawful orders.

Well, he shouldn't be, but to say he cannot be is incorrect. There are many times where they are looking for a fight. I can give examples over and over.

2) They have dash-cams, recorders, and other sworn officers present (there's rarely only one any more) to support their account of what happened.

We have a pretty thread going right now that is relevant to this, where despite there being multiple people, cameras and recording devices, ALL police involved conspired to, and did commit crimes. So looks like that doesn't always work too well...

3) They are indemnified against personal liability as long as they were acting in an official capacity and following department guidelines. They can still get hauled into court, but it isn't on their own dime and they don't personally stand to lose everything if the court decides the department's policies were in error.

Exactly. They don't hold any personal responsibility when they commit infractions. Thank your for pointing this out.

I don't follow that, at all. The reason we -- the people -- hire police officers is to handle situations like this. To keep the peace, as a representative of society as a whole, so things don't become personal man-to-man conflicts.

Well if somehow you are suggesting that police don't, or can't, hold things personal, then I am not sure you are seeing things clearly. Should they take things personal? No. Do they? All the time!

And if I want to chose not to pay for police, can I do that? I mean, if we -- the people -- hire them, can I opt out of their service? The answer, of course, is I cannot. So that doesn't help me much...

A police officer is not representing his own interests when he approaches Mr. Noisy.

Bologna! If making an arrest, or issuing a citation helps him keep his job, as opposed to doing what he knows is a better option, he is going to do what helps him keep his job! This has been shown time and time again.

He's enforcing the laws he's been hired and sworn to uphold. He has no "dog in the fight." If Mr. Noisy doesn't like it, his beef is not with the officer (really) but with the laws of the jurisdiction where he lives. If he chooses to fight about it, he's not fighting A MAN, but the legal system he's flouting.

Again, an instance where if either man had a beef with the other and it had passed beyond police discussion, they should have contended via the legal system rather than coming to a tragic, violent, and stupid end. Not much the police can do if they get called to the scene only to mop up the blood.

So my 1 option is to hope the legal system handles any issue I may have? We are no longer capable of dealing with things ourselves? Am I getting this right? Can you issue me a personal officer then please? I guess nobody is capable any more of handing things themselves. I was really hoping for a police state anyways...

When was the last time you set up to run radar on your street? How many tickets did you write? You pull over many drunk drivers yourself? Do you take many drug dealers off the street, personally? Investigate many crimes? Do you want to have those responsibilities thrust on you?

Whether I want to or not is irrelevant. Because the answer is I can't. So you are pretty much right on point here.

Now, I tend to think that things have gone a bit too far in what powers and techniques we grant to law enforcement these days, but there is NO question that officers of the law are -- and must be -- granted a certain amount of authority and protection in order to do the job we ask them to do.

Bingo.

 

[JRH6856]

All rights carry concomitant responsibilities and all actions have consequences. Our right to act in any situation carries with it the responsibility for the consequences of that action. We must exercise our rights wisely and with discretion lest the consequences of our actions lead to our ruin.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Stephanie Rice, "Charge reduced in fatal noise dispute", The Columbian, 9 Mar 2012.

The incident took place in the jurisdiction of city of Vancouver, Clark County, Washington State.

"...going to the neighbor armed..."

As I understand the opinions of the ordinary people who would form a jury pool, having harm come to you on your own property against your will is one thing, but voluntarily going into harm's way armed is stupid, unjustifiable behavior.

The class I attended on self defense law required for certification for a Tennessee handgun carry permit warned against armed response in similar situations, and emphasized that justification of lethal force (in fear of death or greivous bodily harm) will be undermined if the shooting resulted from an avoidable mutual combat situation. I suspect that going out of one's apartment to the common area parking lot to knock on someone's car window, then shooting the guy for coming out of the car charging, would not pass legal muster.

"If this person didn't have a permit to carry a deadly weopon, Yes, A DEADLY WEAPON, I doubt this person would be in prison right now."

Looking in three stories, I found the word "permit" only in speculation in the comments section. I suspect if the offender had a carry permit it would not go unmentioned by the news media. If it was mentioned, I missed it.

May be this person had a permit, and would not have carried without a permit, and may have not gon eout to the parking lot if he did not have a permit. I have known (as friends, enemies, neighbors, relatives, school chums and acquaintances) bootleggers, gamblers, dope dealers, prostitutes, fence, burglar, motorcycle club members, who went armed and some of whom ended up in prison even though a carry permit was nearly impossible to get before 1996. Most cases I know about, no carry permit does not equal no gun or no prison.

 

[Sam1911]

Indeed they do. What are these 'extra factors in their favor'? Sounds like some other word...

Yes. It sounds like the social construct we call "law enforcement." We, as a society, have decided that we do not want to have to go out on our own to enforce our own personal laws or those of society. We have decided that we don't want other random people to try to do so, either. So we give a few, more or less carefully screened and more or less thoroughly trained people the badge of authority and the duty to do so.

This has been a factor of all but the most primitive societies since before we started writing things down. It seems you aren't a fan of the idea, but I don't see many alternatives available to you.

...There are many times where they are looking for a fight. I can give examples over and over.
...
We have a pretty thread going right now that is relevant to this, where despite there being multiple people, cameras and recording devices, ALL police involved conspired to, and did commit crimes. So looks like that doesn't always work too well...

You seem to want to bring incidents of police wrongdoing into a discussion where it is largely irrelevant. The OP didn't ask about what to do when officers are corrupt or grossly violating their oath. He asked about handling complaints between neighbors when things might turn violent.

None of the horror stories you're tossing out change the answers to the question under discussion here, at all.

Q: Should you confront someone over a minor infraction if you've already had negative interactions with them before?
A: Well, don't call the police! They might be looking for a fight, and be corrupt, and might kick your dog, and could be aliens from Mars sent here to colonize your home town! Yeah...could be.

Or, they could come out, speak to your neighbor and save you the life-altering trouble of shooting him to death.

Exactly. They don't hold any personal responsibility when they commit infractions. Thank your for pointing this out.

They do and they don't. If they are acting within the guidelines dictated by their department and are performing their official duties, they are shielded from personal risk. They have to be. If their department's guidelines are not in line with the law, the department may be liable for damages. If the officer was acting outside his/her department's rules, or outside the line of duty, they sure are responsible for their actions and can be sued, or can be arrested, convicted and jailed! Happens all the time!

And if I want to chose not to pay for police, can I do that? I mean, if we -- the people -- hire them, can I opt out of their service? The answer, of course, is I cannot. So that doesn't help me much...

Wow. Really? That's really an argument you're making? No, you cannot opt out of society's laws and/or the performance of law-enforcement functions. Surprise, surprise. If you want to live under YOUR law, or "nature's" laws only, better start saving up for an island, and maybe an army to "liberate" it from the current owners for you.

If you don't like the performance of your local officers, you can file complaints, you can sue the department (under certain circumstances), vote in elected officials who will create better policies, and you can organize your fellow citizens to work for change. Looking at some current examples, it only takes a few 'viral' videos to get abusive officers' chains yanked pretty hard these days.

A police officer is not representing his own interests when he approaches Mr. Noisy.

Bologna! If making an arrest, or issuing a citation helps him keep his job, as opposed to doing what he knows is a better option, he is going to do what helps him keep his job! This has been shown time and time again.

What in the world does this have to do with the discussion at hand? What do YOU care whether he arrests Mr. Noisy, or writes him a ticket, or just tells him to "keep it down?" So long as you don't end up dead or in jail over his music, you're on the winning end!

So my 1 option is to hope the legal system handles any issue I may have? We are no longer capable of dealing with things ourselves? Am I getting this right?

Yes. That is the rule of LAW, not the rule of MEN. We handle our differences via the legal means at our disposal. We no longer have to ride out and settle things with our fists or guns -- killing and dying over petty grievances. That's civilization.

I guess nobody is capable any more of handing things themselves.

Well, Mr. Neighbor sure did. That mean baddy Mr. Noisy sure won't be causing anyone any more aural discomfort again!

I can't believe that's really what you're promoting as the better solution.

Now, I tend to think that things have gone a bit too far in what powers and techniques we grant to law enforcement these days, but there is NO question that officers of the law are -- and must be -- granted a certain amount of authority and protection in order to do the job we ask them to do.

Bingo.

Indeed.

 

[JohnBT]

"Let's say the shooter was not a civilian, but a police officer."

A military police officer or a civilian police officer? I know how it's used, but cops are civilians if they are subject to civil law. The military police are subject to military law and are not civilians.

My father was a vet and then a state trooper and he explained the difference to me a long, long time ago. The English language can be quite precise.

John

 

[Bonesinium]

What in the world does this have to do with the discussion at hand? What do YOU care whether he arrests Mr. Noisy, or writes him a ticket, or just tells him to "keep it down?" So long as you don't end up dead or in jail over his music, you're on the winning end!

Ahh, and there it is. The "who cares about others as long as it benefits me" statement.

 

[Sam1911]

Ahh, and there it is. The "who cares about others as long as it benefits me" statement.

WHAT? Look, the thread here is about what went wrong for the fellow who tried to get his neighbor to quiet down.

If you don't have anything to contribute -- no suggestions other than a series of rants about cops and seemingly directionless laments over folks taking care of things for themselves -- why post?

WHAT are you suggesting? What should they have done? What is your solution?

Are you saying you think it is likely that "Mr. Neighbor" would have ended up in WORSE shape if he'd called the cops? Or are you actually suggesting that he did the RIGHT thing? And ending up having to shoot "Mr. Noisy" was a GOOD thing? What's your point?

 

[Cesiumsponge]

Looks like an example of where his problem started looking like a nail and a hammer was his only tool. Exactly what prompted him to determine a charge was a lethal force attack? Words? Threats? Disparity of force? Did his argument with the deceased serve to escalate the level of force from words to a physical one? If you cannot articulate why you were in reasonable and immediate jeopardy of your life, you don't have the mental tools necessary to go around shooting folks because you have no idea what constitutes self-defense with lethal force. Just because you can apply for a concealed permit doesn't bequeathed to you vast knowledge regarding the legalities on how to excercise this power. People often badmouth the big-ego cop. These same type of people exist in the concealed permit demographic who think they can pull out their blaster at the drop of a hat.

I doubt he had kind words with the fellow. In fact, the pattern of escalation typically applies in situations like this. Both parties cherry pick what words they hear from the other party. Eventually it gets out of hand and turns physical. The human mind is very good at self-preservation and will pick evidence to fit this conclusion. I'm sure he thinks his actions were justified. Given he knows enough about the neighbor to arm himself shows he felt the individual was a great threat, but chose to have words with him anyways.

 

[Bonesinium]

If you don't have anything to contribute -- no suggestions other than a series of rants about cops and seemingly directionless laments over folks taking care of things for themselves -- why post?

First, I was responding to what YOU said. So please don't be so hypocritical to tell me to do something unless you also take your own advice.

WHAT are you suggesting? What should they have done? What is your solution?

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?

Are you saying you think it is likely that "Mr. Neighbor" would have ended up in WORSE shape if he'd called the cops? Or are you actually suggesting that he did the RIGHT thing? And ending up having to shoot "Mr. Noisy" was a GOOD thing? What's your point?

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

I can't help you if you fail to see that what you are suggesting was already done, and didn't work. The fact that (assuming the article is correct), that when he tried handle it like an adult, 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.

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