Ex-boyfriend kicks in door, new boyfriend kills him

[SnWnMe]

Shooter
Talked too much.

Deceased Ex
Did not realize there were other fishes in the sea

Girlfriend
Must've been one heck of a lay.

 

[Prince Yamato]

I'm glad to see the responses concerning what the defender said. He broke the one of the big rules of self-defence: Don't brag about shooting someone. Even if the bastard ex-boyfriend had it coming to him. Even if he deserved the two shots and the world is safer for it. Even if you DID enjoy sending him to hell full of lead... DO NOT TELL THE COURTS OR THE COPS YOU ENJOYED IT. That was the biggest mistake that guy made. He went all Hollywood to the papers. Regardless of the fact that I may differ with the law, the law is still the law.

 

[ArchAngelCD]

My statements in the previous post in now way should be turned into me thinking the guy was wrong, only that his own words made the second shot very questionable. He did right shooting the guy but his words turned the second shot into a bad second shot for all the reasons I already listed.

Even though the guy probably deserved to die because if not he would have tried to kill them again at some future date, you CAN NOT shoot someone a second time who is on the ground and has already dropped his weapon.

All the people who are typing "YEAH, he's dead, or the world is better off without the dirtbag," better start using their head and realize how dangerous his own words were to his future freedom.

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

We don't know if he did wrong in shooting twice...

Do we know that the perp had dropped his weapon? Do we know that he wasn't a threat still?

The reality is that all we have to go on is a newspaper article and a few quotes... which is not much info...

It's possible for someone to have been shot, dropped his weapon, fell on the floor and still pose an iminent threat of great bodily harm and/or death.

It's easy to MMQB the situation sitting behind a computer screen... I hope no charges are made...

 

[Glenn Kelley]

I don't see the second shot as a big problem.It was a borrowed gun and he was unfamiliar with its aimpoint and the effect that a gunshot would have on a person.The second shot was erring on the side of caution,making sure that the ex didn't recover the handgun.

Running his mouth was a mistake but he was probably still shaken up from the incident. Unprepared for the consequences of his actions however right they were.

 

[Deavis]

It seems possible the story was written up for effect, perhaps the timeline of the gun dropping and the second shot were much closer than indicated. It would not be the first time a journalist used artistic license to make the story more interesting. For all we know it happened as fast as boom, you killed me, slumping, boom. Seems awfully ill-advised to be making statements without you lawyer, even if you did just defend yourself against someone who is obviously intent on harming you.

 

[Tried'nTrue]

Actually those comments speak volumes of your ignorance and you have no conception of what you speak of. I have a career spanning over 20 years that provides a grounding for my observations. Since it seems your knowledge is limited to theory.

Negative on your comment - I've had sufficient experience with violent confrontation to know that it's a simple matter to say what someone should do in any given situation; it is, however, a different matter entirely when one is suddenly thrust into a violent encounter. Thought patterns and resultant actions are altered.

Those who condemn Cegon's actions were not there themselves and did not observe the perp's movements after the first shot. Given that lack of first-hand experience with the situation, I believe that condemnation of Cegon's choice from members of this board is naive at best. No one on the boards can definitively say if the perpetrator was a threat after the first shot; what we read was a mere newspaper write-up, much less a full police report, much less still an interview with those involved! Cegon was there and made his choice. The end result was that a very real threat to 3 innocent lives was stopped from his murderous course. As they say, the proof is in the pudding. That's my stance on the matter of Cegon's shooting choice.

Cegon's words were, doubtless, spoken while still in a traumatized state. Given the circumstances, from what we've read of the matter, I believe he did well.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Firethorn said,

Maybe it's my upbringing, but I might of done the same. You see, even wounded he's still a threat. The police have shown that they can't contain him. He's made threats indicative that he'll still attempt to kill me and my loved ones as long as he's alive.

That is fine and you would have broken the law if you performed as described in the article, shooting a person in a situation that no longer warranted the use of lethal force. It may be construed as murder.

Back in 2001 in Utah, a homeowner shot a naked man trying to break into his house. The single shot was mortal, but the homeowner went over and capped the guy in the head, called the cops. Guess who went to jail and was charged for the killing? The first shot was justified, as described in this case. The second was not.

We don't know if he did wrong in shooting twice...

Do we know that the perp had dropped his weapon? Do we know that he wasn't a threat still?

The reality is that all we have to go on is a newspaper article and a few quotes... which is not much info...

It's possible for someone to have been shot, dropped his weapon, fell on the floor and still pose an iminent threat of great bodily harm and/or death.

Yes, it is, but the shooter apparently didn't know and the downed man wasn't making any aggressive moves...as per the statements.

Heck, if you want to run with the idea that we don't really know what went on because it is just a newspaper article, then we might as well not discuss it at all as we don't know if anything in it is correct, do we. What we are discussing is the information as presented. That is all we have to work with at this time.

I don't see the second shot as a big problem.It was a borrowed gun and he was unfamiliar with its aimpoint and the effect that a gunshot would have on a person.The second shot was erring on the side of caution,making sure that the ex didn't recover the handgun.

Then the second shot is manslaughter and not murder because of ignorance? Ignorance of the law isn't a valid excuse and you have to know that. You don't get to preemptively shoot people for something they might do. Otherwise I suspect many of us would have been dead a long time ago.

 

[gunsmith]

strange

Just the other day there was a lot of hoopla here saying it was the girl who shot her ex.
the other thread had her myspace profile linked, which I went to being
that I am on myspace as well.
Some of her friends are dumb, one in particular was a young white guy
with a picture of him flashing "gang" symbols telling her "you straight up gangsta boo"
She picks real losers as friends, I am glad that they (the couple and kid)
are ok but they are poor examples of good firearm use.

Oh, RE: second shot, bad guy could have very well had a second weapon, he was still a threat.

 

[Glenn Kelley]

Spy,
I said nothing about ignorance of the law,I said he was inexperienced with the gun.I agree with most of what you wrote but I don't think it applies to what I wrote.

Cegon shot at an aggressor (probably in the dark but we don't know that),the ex dropped the gun and followed it to the floor.Cegon shot again.He can't have known the effect of the first shot and it would have been irresponsible to let the ex retrieve the handgun and take back the advantage.

If Cegon was experienced with firearm he probably would not have shot the second time.Three lives depended on his decision,he erred on the side of caution.

 

[Glenn Kelley]

Gunsmith,
The girl your thinking of was the one that shot the football player and his accomplice.She might be a good shot but she is a bit flaky.

 

[massad ayoob]

I was teaching in Minneapolis the week it happened, and thought the paper gave a fairly sympathetic portrayal of the defender's actions.

We don't know the details of what happened during the shooting, between Shot One and Shot Two, nor do we know that the reporter got everything exactly right.

It will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

 

[razorburn]

I also think the 2nd shot sounds really iffy. It does sound like a bad shot, and it's probably rightful if he gets charged for it. Although I must admit I might've done the same thing in that situation. Well, maybe I would've made the follow up shot faster.

 

[thebaldguy]

For those of you not in the Minneapolis/St. Paul metro area, we have seen a large increase in crime in the last few years, especially in Minneapolis.

 

[buzz_knox]

I too, cannot see the rational behind that one!

If it wasn't for the firearm he wouldn't be with us.

I can easily understand the rationale. He just killed someone and, for most people, that's an experience he never wants to have again. He probably doesn't want to have anything remind him of that nor face that decision again, regardless of the benefits of his actions.

As for the second shot, I doubt it is as lethal to his defense as some suggest. No, he should not have said anything beyond he feared for his life. Yet, in many ways, that's probably exactly why he fired the second shot. Put yourself in his shoes: you've just fired on someone who has broken into your residence with the intent on killing you and your loved ones. Even after you shot him, he still has the ability to speak to you. His weapon is near at hand, and you fear he is going to "get up" and continue the assault. Remember too, that your girlfriend and her child are right behind you and if the attacker is able to get his hands on the weapon, any discharge might harm them.

We are expected to use that degree of rationality that a reasonable person would in these circumstances, yet perfect reason is not demanded of someone at these times. If the shooter believed that the attacker still posed a threat, I believe it won't be that hard to convince a trier of fact that the threat was still reasonable.

 

[cngerms]

Kelly noted that Richter was convicted on a methamphetamine charge in 1998 and was sentenced to four years in prison, but he said he didn't know if drugs were involved in Wednesday's shooting.

Drugs may not have been involved the night of the shooting, but I'm reasonably confident they were involved the day of the photograph.

I'd like to make a suggestion concerning keeping one's mouth shut until you're lawyered up. Read the book, Homicide, A Year on the Killing Streets by David Simon. It is the basis for the TV series "Homicide." Simon's book cemented in my mind the concept of making NO statement to the police if you're involved in such a situation. Simon's time spent with Baltimore City's PD was filled with episodes of folks making the most outrageous, incriminating statements during a police interview with no attorney. I honestly believe Simon's book will prevail in my head if I ever find myself in a predicament. I don't believe situational anxiety will induce me to open my cakehole before F. Lee arrives and I'll thank David Simon for it.

 

[03Shadowbob]

It does look like every angle has been covered here on THR. A couple things: the shooter had to do exactly what he did. No other choice. He shouldn't have spoken to the media or anyone until speaking with an attorney. He was in the right in my opinion for shooting that second shot. Anyone who breaks through 2 barriers trying to get to someone has real bad intentions on doing harm. Do you think he just wanted to have a fire-side chat with them? If the guy hadn't killed him, then I guarantee the perp would have been back in the future and better prepared to "finish the job" so IMHO, the perp was still a threat and he got what was coming to him. Besides, was the perp's gun still beside him or in his hand? If so, that is an imminent threat.
I do understand why a lot of people say he should be charged with murder/whatever because of that second shot however, the way I was raised I can't say I wouldn't have done the same thing. In that situation, the threat could only be stopped once the perp is lifeless regardless of how many shots.